DaVinci Resolve MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a project but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing projects, where the project is stored, or any side effects. The return value description is minimal ('A message indicating success or failure'), lacking detail on format or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the return value sentence could be more informative given the lack of output schema details in this context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter creation tool with no annotations but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and detailed usage guidance. The output schema existence means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description's return statement is vague.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics for the single parameter ('name: The name of the project to create'), explaining what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide constraints, examples, or format details (e.g., character limits, uniqueness requirements).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new DaVinci Resolve project') and specifies the resource (DaVinci Resolve project). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_folder', 'create_timeline', or 'load_project' by specifying the type of resource. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the description text itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_folder', 'create_timeline', or 'load_project'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.