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 'Rate the selected clip(s)' but doesn't explain what happens—e.g., whether this is a reversible action, if it affects clip visibility or sorting, or if there are permission requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and to the point, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by stating the core action and target 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?

Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation (implied by 'rate'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like reversibility, permissions, or what the rating affects (e.g., organization, filtering). For a tool that modifies clip state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'rating' fully documented in the schema as an enum of 'favorite', 'unfavorite', 'reject'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining the semantic differences between these ratings or their effects. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Rate the selected clip(s)' states the action (rate) and target (selected clip(s)), but it's vague about what rating entails—whether it's adding metadata, applying a label, or something else. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'add_keyword' or 'add_marker', which might serve similar annotation purposes. A more specific purpose would clarify the exact nature of the rating operation.

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 siblings like 'add_keyword' or 'add_marker' that might annotate clips, there's no indication of when rating is preferred—e.g., for quality assessment versus organizational tagging. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing clips selected first, or exclusions.

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