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. 'Trim clip edges' implies a destructive or mutative operation on media, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether changes are reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to adjacent clips, or any rate limits. It lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Trim'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, though this brevity contributes to vagueness in other dimensions.

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 complexity of media editing (implied by sibling tools) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'trimming' entails operationally, what the tool returns, or how it interacts with other editing functions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 'action' fully documented in the schema's enum and description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Trim clip edges' states the general action (trimming) and target (clip edges), but it's vague about what 'edges' means and doesn't specify how it differs from sibling tools like 'blade', 'retime', or 'change_duration'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., 'blade' for cutting, 'retime' for speed adjustments), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'trim'.

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