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 opens a dialog, implying a user-interactive or modal operation, but does not detail outcomes (e.g., whether changes are applied immediately, if it's destructive, or permission requirements). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 key action ('Open the change duration dialog') and purpose. There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy or ambiguity.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks depth. It does not explain what happens after the dialog is opened (e.g., user interaction flow or result confirmation), which is crucial for understanding the tool's full context. However, for a simple dialog-opening tool, it meets a minimum viable level.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since the tool likely relies on a dialog for input. This aligns with the schema, and the description adds context about the dialog mechanism, compensating adequately for the lack of parameters.

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: 'Open the change duration dialog to set a specific clip or selection duration via timecode.' It specifies the action ('Open...dialog'), resource ('clip or selection'), and mechanism ('via timecode'), making the function understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retime' or 'trim', which might have overlapping functionality, 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. It mentions setting duration 'via timecode' but does not clarify scenarios where this is preferred over other tools (e.g., 'retime' for speed adjustments or 'trim' for cutting). Without explicit when-to-use or exclusion criteria, the agent lacks context for selection.

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