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 'find[s] and manage[s]' duplicates, implying read and write operations, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether changes are destructive, permission requirements, or side effects (e.g., 'make_unique' creates copies). The description lacks context on what 'manage' entails beyond the parameter hints.

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 purpose. It wastes no words but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating finding vs. managing). Every part earns its place, though it's brief given the lack of additional context.

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 (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage guidelines, and output expectations. It's complete enough for basic understanding but leaves gaps for effective agent use without schema consultation.

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 'action' parameter fully documented in the schema (enum values and descriptions). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how actions relate to 'find and manage' or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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: 'Find and manage duplicate clips in the browser/timeline.' It specifies the verb ('find and manage') and resource ('duplicate clips'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on duplicate detection. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'find' or 'selection' beyond the duplicate-specific focus.

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 'browser/timeline' context but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'find' or 'selection' for clip management. Usage is implied through the action parameter but not explained in the description.

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