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 mentions the tool sets a timeline and returns a success/failure message, but fails to explain critical behaviors such as what 'current timeline' means in context, whether this is a destructive operation, or any permission/rate limit considerations.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (mutating operation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It specifies that 'index' is '1-based', clarifying the parameter's semantics in a way the schema alone does not. With only one parameter, this is sufficient for a high score.

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 ('Set') and resource ('current timeline'), specifying it's done 'by index'. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_timeline' or 'create_timeline_from_clips', which are likely related but distinct operations.

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' or 'create_timeline_from_clips'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a timeline must exist) or exclusions, offering only basic parameter information.

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