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. It states the tool performs 'undo or redo the last action', implying mutation but without details on permissions, reversibility, or effects. It lacks behavioral context such as what constitutes an 'action', whether it's limited to specific operations, or if there are constraints like availability based on history state.

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 ('Undo or redo the last action.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 enum) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks completeness in usage guidelines, behavioral details, or output expectations. For a mutation tool with no structured support, it should provide more context to be fully 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with a single parameter 'action' clearly documented as an enum for 'undo' or 'redo'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only restates the parameter's purpose. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose ('Undo or redo the last action'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('undo' or 'redo') but doesn't clarify what 'action' refers to in context (e.g., editing operations in a video timeline). It doesn't distinguish from siblings, as no other tools in the list handle undo/redo functionality.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having a recent action to undo/redo), exclusions, or related tools. Given the sibling list includes tools like 'timeline_history', there's no explicit comparison or context for usage.

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