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. It states the tool 'Set[s]' a mode, implying a mutation or configuration change, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects on other components, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that likely alters editing state.

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 any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and purpose, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 complexity of audio/video editing tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after setting the mode (e.g., confirmation, error messages, or impact on subsequent edits), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. For a tool that likely changes system state, this leaves significant gaps in 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'mode' fully documented in the schema (including enum values: 'both', 'video_only', 'audio_only'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the parameter controls 'which components are affected by edits.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Set the audio/video edit mode to control which components are affected by edits.' It specifies the verb ('Set') and resource ('audio/video edit mode'), and explains the functional outcome ('control which components are affected by edits'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'audio_operations' or 'video_output', which might have overlapping functions, so it misses the highest 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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for application. Given the many sibling tools in this audio/video editing server, such as 'adjust_volume' or 'color_correction_nav', the lack of usage differentiation is a significant gap.

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