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 states the tool is 'AI-powered' and performs 'automatic beat detection,' implying it's a read-only analysis tool, but doesn't clarify if it modifies audio, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output entails (e.g., beat positions as data or visual markers). For a tool with potential audio processing, 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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the overall purpose, and the second elaborates on the analysis action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 moderate complexity (AI analysis with two actions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context. This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results, especially without annotations to fill in safety or operational traits.

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 'action' parameter fully documented via enum values ('detect' and 'toggle_beat_grid') and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the differences between actions in more detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'AI-powered automatic beat detection and beat grid for music/audio clips' with the specific action 'Analyzes audio to find beat positions.' It uses specific verbs ('detect,' 'analyzes') and identifies the resource ('music/audio clips'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'audio_operations' or 'analyze_and_fix,' which might have overlapping functions in audio analysis.

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 mentions the action but doesn't specify prerequisites, context (e.g., whether it requires selected audio clips), or exclusions. With many sibling tools in audio and analysis categories, this lack of differentiation leaves usage unclear.

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