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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the outcome ('into a single clip') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's destructive (e.g., overwriting original clips), rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('merge') and key details ('adjacent selected clips'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly 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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple mutation with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, or output details. For a mutation tool, this leaves the agent under-informed, though the zero-parameter nature reduces risk.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable given no parameters exist. A baseline of 4 is applied as it doesn't need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 ('merge') and target resource ('adjacent selected clips'), specifying they become 'a single clip'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'break_apart_clip' or 'trim' by focusing on combination rather than separation or adjustment. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'create_compound_clip'), slightly limiting specificity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing selected clips), exclusions (e.g., non-adjacent clips), or comparisons to siblings like 'create_compound_clip' for similar operations. The description implies usage context but lacks explicit instructions.

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