Final Cut Pro MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool duplicates a project with optional settings, but doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation, requires specific permissions, or how it handles errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 ('duplicate the current project') and adds optional details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the mention of settings without parameters could be slightly confusing.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling) and doesn't explain what the tool returns, leaving gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by hinting at optional settings like resolution and frame rate, which might be relevant if parameters were present, but since there are none, this is slightly extraneous but not harmful.

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 ('duplicate') and resource ('the current project'), making the purpose evident. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'snapshot_project' or 'new_project', but the verb 'duplicate' implies creating a copy of an existing project rather than a new empty one or a snapshot.

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 like 'snapshot_project' or 'new_project'. The description mentions optional settings but doesn't clarify prerequisites, such as requiring an open project or specific context.

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