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 states the tool toggles a display, implying it's non-destructive and likely read-only for viewing purposes, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific viewer states, affects playback, or has side effects like UI changes. More behavioral details would help agents predict outcomes.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('toggle') and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks usage context, behavioral nuances, or output expectations. For a toggle tool in a complex media environment, more guidance on integration with other tools would enhance completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining what the toggle controls (title safe, action safe zones, etc.), which isn't captured in the schema. This compensates well for the lack of 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 ('toggle') and the resource ('custom overlay display in the viewer'), specifying what it controls (title safe, action safe zones, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on overlay display rather than media editing or project management functions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar toggle tools like 'toggle_panel' or 'toggle_snapping'.

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 viewer open), exclusions, or related tools for overlay management. Without such context, an agent might struggle to apply it appropriately in workflows.

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