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. It mentions the tool sends shortcuts but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires Final Cut Pro to be active/focused, potential side effects (e.g., triggering unintended actions), error handling, or system requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with an external application.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidance into a second sentence for clarity.

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 of interacting with an external application and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover prerequisites (e.g., Final Cut Pro must be running), expected outcomes, error conditions, or safety considerations, which are crucial for reliable tool invocation in this context.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions like using 'key' vs 'key_code'). 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 clearly states the action ('Send a keyboard shortcut') and target application ('to Final Cut Pro'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'execute_menu_command' or 'select_tool' that might also involve interface interactions, missing full sibling distinction.

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 implied usage guidance ('Use this for any command that has a keyboard shortcut'), suggesting when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'execute_menu_command' for commands without shortcuts, lacking clear exclusions or comparisons.

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