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. It mentions actions like 'save a reference frame' and 'compare side-by-side', which imply read/write operations, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies data, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it handles errors. The description is too vague to fully inform an agent about the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 with two sentences that efficiently state the tool's purpose and key actions. It's front-loaded with the main function and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly linking actions to the parameter enum for clarity.

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 (single parameter with enum actions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and hints at usage, but lacks details on behavioral transparency, error handling, and output expectations. For a tool with no structured support, it should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 well-documented via enum values. The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'save a reference frame' (related to 'add' action) and 'compare side-by-side' (implied for viewer actions), but doesn't provide additional details beyond what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare frame/viewer for before-and-after comparison of color corrections and effects.' It specifies the verb ('compare') and resource ('frame/viewer') with context about color corrections and effects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'match_color' or 'color_correction_nav', which might involve similar color-related operations.

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 implies usage for comparing color corrections and effects, suggesting it's used in post-production workflows. It mentions saving a reference frame and side-by-side comparison, which gives some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'match_color' for color matching or 'color_correction_nav' for navigation), and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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