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 'controls' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, or how it interacts with the UI (e.g., if it modifies the current selection). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (involving multiple action types for keyframe manipulation) and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the general purpose but misses details on behavior, usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving room for improvement.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with a well-documented 'action' enum. Since the schema fully describes the single parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as no additional semantic value is provided.

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 as 'Keyframe animation controls for effects, transforms, and audio parameters,' specifying the resource (keyframe animation) and scope (effects, transforms, audio parameters). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nudge' or 'retime' that might also involve keyframe adjustments, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an active timeline or selected clip, and doesn't mention when to choose this over similar tools like 'nudge' or 'adjust_volume' for audio parameter changes.

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