Statonic MCP

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 thoroughly describes the tool's behavior: it reads from 'variation-context.json', writes output files to a variations folder, applies text changes and clip overrides, and specifies that the editor handles subsequent steps automatically. It also mentions prerequisites and post-call restrictions, covering operational context effectively.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important usage notes and implementation details. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'IMPORTANT' sections) and could be slightly tightened without losing clarity, preventing a perfect score.

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 complexity (generating project variations with multiple operations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers prerequisites, input semantics, behavioral steps, file I/O details, and post-call instructions, providing all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that variations are 'full copies of the project' and details how 'textChanges' and 'clipOverrides' are applied (e.g., 'find/replace rules applied to ALL text segment "text" fields (case-insensitive)' and 'swap specific video segments by segmentId'). This enhances understanding but doesn't fully elevate to a 5, as it doesn't clarify edge cases or advanced usage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Generate project variation files from the currently open project's variation session.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('project variation files'), and source ('variation session'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'write_statonic_project' or 'render_preview' that handle different 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 explicit usage instructions: 'Do NOT call get_reference_frames or any other tool before this one. Go straight to create_variations' and 'After calling create_variations, do NOT call write_statonic_project, render_preview, get_suitable_audio, or any other tool.' It names specific tools to avoid and explains the required context (user must have clicked 'Variations' in the editor toolbar).

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