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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete markers' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify if deletions are permanent, reversible (e.g., via undo), require permissions, or have side effects. It lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon success/failure, leaving critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 overly concise at two words, leading to under-specification rather than efficiency. It lacks front-loaded critical information (e.g., context or risks) and wastes an opportunity to clarify usage in a single sentence. While not verbose, it fails to convey necessary details, making it ineffective.

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 destructive nature (implied by 'delete'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, return values, or how it fits within the sibling tools (e.g., video editing context). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 single parameter 'scope' fully documented in the schema (enum values and description). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but with only one parameter and high coverage, the baseline is strong. No compensation is needed, though it doesn't enhance understanding further.

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 'Delete markers' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb (delete) and resource (markers) but lacks specificity about what markers are or their context in the sibling tools (e.g., video editing markers). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'delete_selection' or clarify what type of markers are being deleted.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing markers to exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'add_marker' or 'delete_selection'. Without context, an agent might misuse it or overlook better options among the many sibling tools.

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