Final Cut Pro MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive edit, permission requirements, how it affects clip metadata, or error conditions (e.g., invalid group numbers). The mention of 'pre-configured' groups adds minimal context.

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 front-loads the core action ('Apply a keyword group') and includes essential context ('pre-configured in FCP's keyword editor'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral impact (e.g., whether changes are reversible), expected outcomes, or error handling. The context about pre-configured groups is helpful but insufficient for full agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'group' parameter's type, range, and purpose. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying keyword groups are numbered 1-9, which the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Apply a keyword group') and target ('to the selected clip(s)'), with specific context about FCP's keyword editor. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_marker' or 'add_color_correction' by focusing on keywords, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions keyword groups are pre-configured in FCP's keyword editor, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., clips must be selected) or compare to other tagging/metadata tools in the sibling list.

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