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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Open' suggests a UI action, but it doesn't clarify whether this changes application state, requires specific conditions, has side effects, or what happens if the panel is already open. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a zero-parameter UI 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 UI-focused tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the keyword editor panel is, what it's used for, or what the expected outcome of opening it is. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and the lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps, so it meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 'Open the keyword editor panel' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'open_keyword_editor' without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what the keyword editor does, what resources it affects, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'add_keyword' or 'keyframes'.

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. With many sibling tools related to keywords, markers, and editing, the description fails to indicate whether this is for creating, editing, or managing keywords, or what specific context triggers its use.

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