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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a destructive operation ('break apart'), implying mutation, but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this action is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens to effects or adjustments applied to the original clip. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 and outcome with zero wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function without fluff or repetition, making it easy for an AI agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., reversibility, side effects) and usage context, which are important for safe and effective operation. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for informed tool selection.

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 appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information beyond what the schema already covers.

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 specific action ('break apart') and target resources ('compound clip or multicam clip'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_compound_clip' or 'create_multicam_clip' that perform opposite operations. It precisely defines the outcome ('into its individual component clips'), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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, such as when to break apart clips versus using other editing tools like 'blade' or 'trim'. It also lacks prerequisites, like requiring a compound or multicam clip to be selected, which could lead to incorrect usage by an AI agent.

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