Final Cut Pro MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves data ('Get all projects') and includes specific details, but fails to address critical aspects such as permissions required, pagination, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation.

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 ('Get all projects within a specific event') and adds relevant detail without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and scope. However, it lacks details on return format, error conditions, or behavioral traits, which are important given the tool's role in a media editing context with many sibling tools.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('library_name' and 'event_name'). The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters, such as format examples or constraints beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Get all projects') and resource ('within a specific event'), with added detail about included data ('sequence/timeline details'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_events' or 'get_libraries', but the specificity of 'projects within an event' provides some implicit distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving project data within events, but it lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_events' or 'duplicate_project'.

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