ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), but the description adds valuable context by specifying it disconnects from an existing connection. It doesn't contradict annotations and clarifies the precondition, though it could mention side effects like terminating ongoing operations.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without any redundant or unnecessary information. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly efficient 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core action and precondition, but could slightly enhance completeness by noting idempotency or effects on sibling tools, though annotations partly address this.

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 appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since it handles the zero-parameter case effectively.

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 specific action ('Disconnect') and resource ('currently connected ATEM switcher'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which perform different operations like connecting, controlling, or querying the switcher. It precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool: when there is a 'currently connected ATEM switcher' to disconnect from. It implies an alternative (using 'atem_connect' to connect instead) and excludes use when no connection exists, providing clear contextual guidance.

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