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 mentions opening a dialog but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires user interaction, what happens on invocation (e.g., modal dialog), or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks context on how the tool behaves in practice.

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 front-loaded in a single sentence, with no wasted words. It efficiently states the tool's action and parameter options. However, it could be slightly improved by adding context (e.g., specifying the application) without losing conciseness.

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 of a dialog-opening tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the dialog does, how it interacts with the user, what the expected outcomes are, or any dependencies. For a tool that likely involves UI interaction, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 a single parameter 'type' that has an enum of 'find' and 'find_and_replace_title'. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning these options in the text, but it doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents, such as explaining the difference between the two types or their effects.

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 states the tool opens a dialog for finding or find-and-replace operations in title text, which is a clear purpose. However, it doesn't specify what application or context this is for (e.g., video editing software like Final Cut Pro), and while it distinguishes between 'find' and 'find_and_replace_title', it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that might involve text manipulation or searching.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as having a project open or being in a specific mode, nor does it refer to sibling tools like 'navigate' or 'selection' that might be related. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.

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