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 full burden. It mentions 'Open the recording panel' and 'start/stop recording,' which implies mutation (opening/controlling), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if it interrupts playback), or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks rich context beyond basic actions.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and actions. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly for an AI agent.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks depth for a mutation tool with no annotations—e.g., it doesn't explain what happens after actions or potential constraints. It's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 parameter 'action' fully documented in the schema (enum values and descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining when to choose 'show_panel' versus 'toggle_recording' in practical terms. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Voice-over recording controls. Open the recording panel and start/stop recording.' It specifies the verb ('controls') and resource ('voice-over recording'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on voice-over functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential audio-related siblings like 'adjust_volume' or 'audio_operations' beyond the voice-over focus.

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 implies usage for controlling voice-over recordings, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions two actions ('show_panel' and 'toggle_recording'), which suggests contexts for opening the panel or toggling recording, but lacks when-not scenarios or named alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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