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 merely lists action names without explaining what each does behaviorally (e.g., 'copy' duplicates content to clipboard, 'cut' removes and copies, 'paste' inserts from clipboard). It doesn't cover side effects, permissions, or response format, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 very concise—a single phrase in parentheses—and front-loaded with the tool name implying the topic. However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified rather than efficiently informative, as it lacks necessary behavioral details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs mutations (clipboard operations imply changes). It fails to explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly in a complex editing environment with many siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'action' fully documented in the schema (including enum values). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain differences between actions like 'paste' vs. 'paste_as_connected'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'Clipboard operations (copy, cut, paste)' states the general purpose (clipboard operations) and lists three specific actions, but it's vague about what resource these operations act upon (e.g., timeline selections, media items). It distinguishes from many siblings by focusing on clipboard functionality, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'selection' or 'edit_insert' that might involve similar concepts.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a selection first), context (e.g., timeline vs. browser), or exclusions. With many sibling tools for editing and manipulation, this lack of usage context leaves the agent to guess when clipboard operations are appropriate.

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