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 full burden. It states it 'creates' something, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to the original selection, what happens on failure, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, as a mutation tool with no behavioral details or output information, it lacks completeness for safe and effective use by an AI agent, leaving key aspects like success criteria or effects unaddressed.

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, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds context by implying the tool uses the 'current selection' as an implicit input, which is useful beyond the empty schema. This compensates adequately for the lack of explicit 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 action ('create') and the resource ('compound clip'), specifying it's from 'the current selection'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_multicam_clip' or 'create_storyline' by focusing on compound clips specifically. However, it doesn't fully explain what a compound clip is, which slightly limits differentiation.

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 minimal guidance: it implies use when there's a current selection to create a compound clip from. No explicit when-not-to-use instructions, alternatives, or prerequisites are mentioned, such as how to make a selection first or what constitutes a valid selection.

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