Final Cut Pro MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool applies an automated adjustment but doesn't disclose whether it's destructive (e.g., permanently alters the clip), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., creates new clips), or details output (e.g., success/failure indicators). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 Auto Reframe') and purpose. There is no wasted text, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (an automated framing adjustment), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, constraints, or results. For a mutation tool in a video editing context, more information on effects and limitations would be beneficial, though the zero parameters simplify the context.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, as no additional semantic explanation is needed beyond the schema.

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 Auto Reframe') and target ('selected clip') with a specific purpose ('automatically adjust framing for different aspect ratios'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'adjustment_layer' or 'color_correction_nav' by focusing on automated framing adjustments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'clip_appearance' or 'retime' that might also affect clip presentation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a clip selected), exclusions (e.g., not for audio clips), or compare to siblings like 'adjustment_layer' for manual framing or 'retime' for timing adjustments. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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