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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'show or hide' but doesn't specify whether this is a toggle action, if it requires specific interface states, what happens to other panels, or if there are side effects like layout changes. For a UI interaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in a tool definition.

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 low complexity (one parameter with full schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain behavioral nuances, usage context, or integration with sibling tools, which could help an agent use it more effectively in the broader FCP interface ecosystem.

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 does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with a clear enum for the 'panel' parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the single required parameter without needing extra details from the description.

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 ('show or hide') and target ('various panels and browsers in the FCP interface'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'go_to_panel' or 'window_layout', which might also involve panel navigation or arrangement, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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, such as 'go_to_panel' for navigation or 'window_layout' for broader interface changes. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and basic purpose.

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