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 'controls' and 'navigates', implying it's a read-only or low-risk operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., modifying video files), involves rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety.

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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first sets the overall purpose, and the second specifies the navigation aspect. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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's moderate complexity (controlling an AI editor), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output. It doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps in understanding how to effectively use the tool in practice.

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 fully documented in the schema itself (enum values and descriptions). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Control the AI-powered Cinematic mode editor for iPhone Cinematic video. Navigate between AI focus/framing decisions.' It specifies the verb ('control', 'navigate'), resource ('Cinematic mode editor'), and scope ('iPhone Cinematic video'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'auto_reframe' or 'object_tracking', which might have overlapping video editing functions.

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 'navigate between AI focus/framing decisions', but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'auto_reframe' (which might handle automated reframing) or 'object_tracking' (which might involve tracking objects in video). There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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