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 for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Opens the new project dialog' which suggests this is a UI-interactive operation rather than a programmatic creation, adding some context. However, it doesn't address permissions needed, whether this is a modal operation that blocks other actions, or what happens if the dialog is cancelled.

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 extremely concise with just two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context about the UI interaction. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative about the dialog's nature.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and UI interaction mode adequately. However, it lacks information about what happens after dialog completion, whether the tool returns anything, or how it relates to similar project-creation tools among siblings.

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 already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and behavior. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 ('Create a new project') and resource ('project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from 'duplicate_project' or 'snapshot_project' among the sibling tools, which could create ambiguity about when to use each.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'duplicate_project' or 'snapshot_project'. It mentions 'Opens the new project dialog' which hints at UI interaction but doesn't clarify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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