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. It states the tool 'switches' to another tool, implying a state change, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to the current editing state, or if it's reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a tool-switching operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'editing tool' refers to, how the switch impacts the user interface or editing workflow, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool that likely changes application state, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'tool' fully documented in the schema (including enum values). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what the tools in the enum do or how switching affects the editing environment. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Switch to a specific editing tool' clearly states the action (switch) and target (editing tool), but it's vague about what 'editing tool' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'blade' or 'trim' that might also involve tool selection or editing functions.

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. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'blade', 'trim', 'selection'), it's unclear if this is for UI tool switching, activating specific editing modes, or something else. The description lacks context about prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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