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. It states the tool 'controls playback,' implying it performs actions that may affect playback state (e.g., starting, stopping, looping). However, it doesn't disclose critical details like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to media, its response format, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Control playback in Final Cut Pro.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a tool with a simple parameter set. Every part of the description earns its place by clearly stating 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 low complexity (one parameter with full schema coverage) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context for safe or effective use—e.g., no behavioral details or usage guidelines. This makes it complete only in a basic sense, with clear gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'action' parameter fully documented via an enum list (e.g., 'play_pause', 'stop'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the semantics of actions like 'play_selection' or 'loop_toggle'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Control playback in Final Cut Pro.' It specifies the verb ('control') and resource ('playback'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_playback_speed' or 'retime', which also affect playback behavior, so it doesn't reach 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'set_playback_speed' or 'retime', which might be better for specific playback adjustments. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the parameter enum alone.

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