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 that the tool 'Opens the timecode entry dialog and types the timecode,' which adds some behavioral context beyond a basic 'navigate' action. However, it does not disclose critical traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it changes the timeline state, or any side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation-like tool.

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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and action without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's behavior efficiently.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple navigation tool with one parameter. It covers the basic action and parameter use but lacks depth on behavioral aspects like error handling or return values. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in completeness for a tool that interacts with the UI.

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 the 'timecode' parameter with examples. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is used for navigation but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Navigate to a specific timecode position') and the resource ('timecode'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'navigate' or 'playback' by specifying it opens a dialog and types the timecode. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that is not tautological.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it works only in certain modes or if other tools like 'navigate' or 'playback' are better for different scenarios. No sibling tool comparisons are made.

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