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. It mentions 'analyze and fix' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or operates in batch. This leaves critical gaps for safe and effective use.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured by including key details upfront. Overall, it's appropriately sized for its simplicity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'analyze and fix' does, what it returns, or how it behaves, making it inadequate for a tool in a complex editing environment with many siblings.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine here, but it could hint at implicit context (e.g., selection state). Baseline is 4 since zero params reduce the need for semantic details.

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 states the action ('Run analyze and fix') and target ('selected clips'), which gives a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'analyze and fix' entails—does it detect issues like stabilization, color, or audio? It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'color_correction_nav' or 'detect_beats', which might handle similar analyses.

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. With many sibling tools for editing and correction (e.g., 'color_correction_nav', 'detect_beats', 'auto_reframe'), the description lacks context on prerequisites, specific use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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