Final Cut Pro MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions four specific actions but doesn't explain what each action does behaviorally (e.g., what 'collapse_to_spine' actually means, whether changes are destructive, what permissions are needed, or what the expected outcomes are). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence that efficiently covers the tool's main functionality. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose immediately clear. There's zero wasted verbiage.

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 complexity of video editing operations and the lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'connected storyline' is, what 'spine' refers to, what happens after each action, or what errors might occur. For a tool with four distinct actions in a professional editing context, more contextual information is needed.

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 a well-documented enum parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by mentioning 'from selection' for creation and referring to 'storyline clips' for collapse/lift actions, which provides additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's technical description of 'action' as 'Storyline action'.

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 with specific verbs ('create', 'collapse', 'lift') and resources ('connected storyline', 'storyline clips'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many siblings in the video editing context, though the specific focus on storylines provides some implicit 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'from selection' for creation, it doesn't explain when to choose this over other editing tools like 'create_compound_clip' or 'merge_clips', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for the different actions.

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