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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so: it does not indicate whether this is a destructive or non-destructive operation, what permissions or timeline state are required, how it affects existing media, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., changes to timeline structure). The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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, concise sentence that directly addresses the tool's action. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, it is overly terse to the point of under-specification, which slightly detracts from its effectiveness, but it does not waste words.

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 complexity implied by multiple edit modes and media types, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's impact on the timeline, potential side effects, error conditions, or what the agent should expect after invocation. For a tool with nuanced parameters and no structured behavioral hints, the description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 clear enum values and defaults documented for both parameters ('mode' and 'media_type'). The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters—it does not explain what the modes do (e.g., 'insert' vs. 'append'), how 'media_type' influences the edit, or provide examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description does not compensate with any extra insights.

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 'Perform an edit insertion into the timeline' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'edit_insert' with minimal added context. It lacks specificity about what resource is being edited (e.g., clips, media, timeline segments) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'insert_placeholder', 'trim', or 'blade', which also perform timeline edits. The verb 'perform an edit insertion' is vague and circular.

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 any prerequisites, context (e.g., timeline selection state), or sibling tools that might be more appropriate for specific edit types (e.g., 'trim' for adjusting clip boundaries, 'blade' for cutting clips). Without such information, the agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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