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 mentions that the tool generates 'valid FCPXML 1.11' and that it can be imported into FCP, but lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, rate limits, or what happens with the 'import_immediately' parameter. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds context about usage and capabilities. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and high-level usage but lacks behavioral details like output format, error cases, or integration specifics with FCP, which are important for a tool generating structured XML content.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying the tool uses these parameters to generate XML content, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema specifies.

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 with specific verbs ('generate', 'create') and resources ('FCPXML content', 'timeline structures'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'export_xml' or 'import_xml' by focusing on programmatic generation rather than export/import operations.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to create projects with clips, transitions, titles, and effects defined in XML'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'create_project' or 'export_xml'.

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