ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('all input levels, mix options, and master output settings') and return format ('JSON object'), which are not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and scope, the second specifies the return format. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently 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 has no parameters, rich annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what is returned, but could benefit from more detail on the JSON structure or example output. However, it adequately covers the core functionality for a read-only tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on what the tool returns. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current audio mixer state', specifying it includes 'all input levels, mix options, and master output settings'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'atem_get_status' by focusing specifically on audio mixer state rather than general status.

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 when audio mixer state is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'atem_get_status' or 'atem_set_audio_master_output'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.

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