Final Cut Pro MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this adds an effect but doesn't specify what kind of effect (beyond the 'type' parameter), whether it modifies clips destructively, what permissions are needed, or what happens if multiple clips are selected. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'default effect' entails, how it interacts with selected clips, or what the result looks like. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'type' fully documented in the schema as an enum of 'video' or 'audio'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying effects are added to clips, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Add') and target resource ('default effect to the selected clip(s)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'add_color_correction' or 'add_transition', which presumably also add effects to clips.

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. With many sibling tools that also modify clips (e.g., 'add_color_correction', 'add_transition'), there's no indication of what makes 'add_effect' distinct or when it should be preferred over other effect-adding tools.

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