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. It states the tool 'cuts/splits' clips, implying a destructive or mutative operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or how it interacts with the timeline. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies content.

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 ('Blade (cut/split) clips') and condition ('at the playhead position'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 a video editing tool that performs clip splitting, the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema are provided, and the description lacks details on behavioral aspects like mutability, error conditions, or result format. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively in a rich editing 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'all' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, which already explains the parameter's effect. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles the parameter semantics adequately.

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 ('cut/split clips') and the condition ('at the playhead position'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'break_apart_clip' or 'trim', which might have overlapping functionality in video editing contexts, preventing 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 like 'break_apart_clip' or 'trim' from the sibling list. It mentions the playhead position but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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