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 but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this operation is destructive (e.g., alters timeline edits), requires specific permissions, has side effects like updating playback, or how it interacts with undo/redo. The mention of 'cut_and_switch' in the schema hints at behavior, but the description doesn't elaborate.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool's domain (multicam editing) but lacks context about prerequisites, effects, or integration with sibling tools like 'timeline_history' or 'playback'. Without annotations, more behavioral detail would improve completeness.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('angle' as 1-16 number, 'cut_and_switch' as boolean with default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool operates on multicam clips, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 ('Switch to') and resource ('a specific angle in a multicam clip'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_multicam_clip' or 'multicam_angle_selection' (if they existed), which would require more specificity about its role within multicam editing workflows.

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 or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't mention if a multicam clip must be selected or active in the timeline, or how it relates to tools like 'select_tool' or 'edit_insert'. This leaves the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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