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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions two actions ('delete' and 'replace with a gap'), implying mutation, but does not specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to adjacent clips. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Delete selected clips or replace with a gap.' It is front-loaded with the core action, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a mutation tool in a media editing context, 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'mode' parameter fully documented in the schema's enum description. The tool description does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of each mode. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds no extra value.

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: 'Delete selected clips or replace with a gap.' It specifies the verb ('delete' or 'replace') and resource ('selected clips'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_markers' or 'trim', which might handle similar deletion operations in different contexts.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., timeline editing), or compare with siblings like 'delete_markers' or 'trim'. This lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer applicability based on the tool name alone.

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