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 'Toggle' implying a state change, but does not specify if this requires specific permissions, what the default state is, whether it's reversible, or any side effects like performance impacts. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action ('Toggle external video output') and providing relevant context. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for a mutation tool. It does not cover behavioral aspects like error conditions, confirmation of state changes, or integration with other tools, leaving room for improvement in contextual understanding.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could have mentioned if any implicit parameters (like device selection) are involved, though not required.

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 with a specific verb ('Toggle') and resource ('external video output'), and specifies the target devices (external displays, broadcast monitors, HDMI devices). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools, as none appear to be direct alternatives for video output control.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks context such as whether it's for monitoring during editing or final output, and does not reference any sibling tools for comparison.

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