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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Selection operations' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what visual feedback occurs, whether selections persist across operations, or any side effects. For a tool that likely modifies application state, this complete lack of behavioral information 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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to communicate essential information and wastes the opportunity to guide the agent. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide meaningful guidance.

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 likely importance in a video editing workflow (with many sibling tools for editing operations), the complete lack of annotations, no output schema, and a description that adds almost no value beyond the name makes this description completely inadequate. The agent cannot understand what this tool does, when to use it, or what behavior to expect.

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 single parameter 'action' having a clear enum and description. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Selection operations' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'selection' without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't mention the specific actions available (select_all, deselect_all, select_clip_at_playhead) or what resources are being selected. While the name implies timeline/media selection in a video editing context, the description adds no clarity beyond the name.

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 sibling tools like 'delete_selection' or 'select_tool' that might be related, nor does it indicate any prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for selection operations. The agent receives zero usage direction from this description.

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