ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations cover basic hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, etc.), but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it's a toggle with state-dependent behavior (fades to black if live, fades back up if already in FTB). This goes beyond annotations by explaining the dual-state operation, though it doesn't mention rate limits or specific permission needs.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. It's appropriately sized (two sentences plus Args), though the Args section could be integrated more seamlessly. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (stateful toggle), annotations provide safety hints, and schema fully covers the single parameter. The description explains the core behavior well, though it lacks output details (no output schema) and doesn't mention error cases or visual feedback. It's mostly complete for a toggle operation.

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 clear documentation of the 'me' parameter. The description's Args section repeats the schema info without adding extra meaning (e.g., why ME matters, typical use cases). 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 specific action: 'Toggle Fade to Black (FTB)' with precise behavior: 'If currently live, fades to black. If already in FTB, fades back up.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'atem_cut' (instant transition) and 'atem_auto_transition' (auto fade) by specifying toggle behavior.

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 through 'Toggle Fade to Black' and the conditional logic, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'atem_cut' or 'atem_auto_transition'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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