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. While 'Set' implies mutation, the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing roles, or what the expected outcome looks like. 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 that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space on redundant details.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'selected clip' means contextually, what visual or functional changes result from role assignment, or whether there are constraints on which clips can have roles set. The description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered.

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 'role' fully documented in the schema with enum values. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Set') and target resource ('role of the selected clip'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clip_appearance' or 'rename_clip', but the specificity of 'role' assignment provides reasonable 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that might modify clip properties (like 'clip_appearance', 'rename_clip', 'rate_clip'), there's no indication of when role assignment is appropriate versus other clip modifications.

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