ATEM MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent operation with open-world semantics, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the default port (9910) and mentions that it returns connection confirmation with model info, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior and expected outcomes.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section that efficiently covers key details without redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, making it highly concise and well-organized for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (network connection with two parameters), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return info, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error handling, network timeouts) to fully guide the agent in a production environment.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (host and port). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only restating the IP address example and default port. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles the heavy lifting, but no additional semantic insights are provided.

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 ('Connect to') and target resource ('Blackmagic ATEM video switcher on the network'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'atem_disconnect', which handles disconnection, though the distinction is implied by the verb 'Connect'.

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 context by specifying it's for connecting to a network device, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., prerequisites, timing relative to other operations like 'atem_get_status'). It doesn't mention any exclusions or direct alternatives, leaving usage somewhat open-ended.

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