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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'create and manage' implies mutation capabilities, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing clips), or operational constraints (e.g., if it requires a selection or specific mode). The description is too vague to inform the agent adequately about behavioral traits.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality ('Create and manage anchored storyline spines') and adds clarifying context ('for organizing connected clips'). Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (managing storyline spines) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but misses details on behavior, usage context, and output expectations. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing about return values, though the description's focus on purpose rather than results is acceptable for a baseline.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'action' parameter fully documented via its enum and description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the 'selection' context for 'create' or explaining the editing modes. Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema handles the parameter semantics effectively.

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: 'Create and manage anchored storyline spines for organizing connected clips.' It specifies the verb ('create and manage'), resource ('anchored storyline spines'), and function ('organizing connected clips'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_storyline' or 'create_compound_clip', which prevents a perfect score.

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 related to editing and organizing clips (e.g., 'create_storyline', 'create_compound_clip', 'timeline_history'), there is no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using anchored_storyline. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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