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 'share/export' which implies an output operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format is. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action, but it could be more structured by separating 'share' and 'export' concepts. It's concise with zero waste, though slightly ambiguous in phrasing.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs share/export operations. It doesn't explain what 'share' entails (e.g., file generation, network transfer), what 'export' produces, or any side effects. For a tool with potential complexity, this leaves significant gaps.

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 'destination' documented as 'Export destination' with enum values 'default' and 'compressor'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'default' or 'compressor' entail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states the tool 'share/export the project' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'share' means versus 'export' and doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'export_captions' or 'export_xml'. It's not tautological but lacks specificity.

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 like 'export_captions' or 'export_xml' from the sibling list. The description mentions 'default destination or send to Compressor' but doesn't explain when to choose one over the other or any prerequisites.

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