DaVinci Resolve MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'creates' something, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what happens on failure. The return message is vaguely described as 'indicating success or failure', lacking detail on format or content.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Arg/Return sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a write operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks behavioral details and usage context that would be helpful for an agent, especially with no annotations to fill gaps.

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?

The description explicitly documents the single parameter ('name: The name of the timeline to create'), adding clear meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. Since there's only one parameter, the description fully compensates for the schema gap, though it doesn't elaborate on constraints like length or allowed characters.

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 timeline') and resource ('in the current project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_timeline_from_clips' or 'set_current_timeline', which would require explicit comparison to earn a perfect score.

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_timeline_from_clips' or 'set_current_timeline'. It mentions 'in the current project' but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must be open) or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for tool selection.

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