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 but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether these operations are read-only or destructive, what permissions might be required, what side effects occur, or what the tool returns. The vague 'operations' gives no insight into 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 extremely concise with just two words, but this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficient. Every word earns its place, but there are too few words to be helpful.

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 implied by six different action types (create, add_and_edit, edit, extract_from_clip, split, resolve_overlaps), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what captions are, what these operations do, or what to expect as results.

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 documented as 'Caption action', and the enum values provide specific operations. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Caption operations' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'captions' without specifying what operations are performed. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'export_captions', 'import_captions', or 'transcribe_to_captions', nor does it mention the specific actions available through the action parameter.

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 sibling tools like 'export_captions' or 'import_captions', nor does it indicate any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this tool.

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