Final Cut Pro MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 360° viewer requirement for navigation controls, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally: whether it's a read-only display control or makes permanent edits, what permissions are needed, what happens when invoked, or what the expected outcomes are. For a tool with 20 possible actions, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence efficiently lists the tool's three main capability areas. The second sentence provides a critical prerequisite. Both sentences earn their place by adding value beyond what's in the schema. It could be slightly more front-loaded with the core purpose, but overall it's well-structured without wasted words.

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 complexity (20 possible actions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and provides some parameter context, but doesn't explain what the tool returns, how different actions affect the video, or what behavioral outcomes to expect. For a tool with this many action options and no structured output documentation, more guidance would be helpful.

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?

The description adds meaningful context about parameter semantics despite 100% schema description coverage. While the schema documents the 'action' enum values, the description groups them into categories (stereoscopic, navigation, FOV, display) and clarifies that navigation 'requires 360° viewer open'. This provides organizational context and usage constraints that go beyond the schema's technical documentation of enum values.

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 tool's purpose: 'Controls for 360°, VR, and spatial video editing' with specific capabilities listed (stereoscopic viewing modes, 360° navigation, field of view adjustments). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on spatial/VR editing, unlike general editing tools like 'add_effect' or 'color_correction_nav'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar-sounding tools like 'navigate' or 'video_output'.

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 some implied usage context: 'The 360° viewer must be open for navigation controls' indicates a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose 'spatial_video' over 'navigate' or 'video_output'), nor does it provide exclusions or clear decision criteria beyond the viewer requirement.

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