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. While it states the tool creates something new, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like what happens if clips are missing, whether the timeline becomes active immediately, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled. The description is functional but lacks depth for a creation tool.

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 well-structured and appropriately concise. The main purpose is stated upfront in a single clear sentence, followed by organized parameter explanations. There's no wasted text, though the 'Returns' section could be considered slightly redundant given the output schema exists.

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 creation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic information but has notable gaps. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the description doesn't address important context like prerequisites (must have clips in current folder), error conditions, or behavioral nuances.

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 provides meaningful context for both parameters beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains that 'name' is for the timeline being created and 'clip_indices' are '1-based' indices of clips to include. This adds crucial semantic information about parameter purpose and format that the schema alone doesn't provide.

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 ('from clips in the current media pool folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_timeline' by specifying the source material (clips), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions 'clips in the current media pool folder' which gives some context, but offers no explicit when/when-not advice or alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to choose this over 'create_timeline' or other media creation tools.

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