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 valuable context by specifying what information is returned (model, firmware, inputs, connection state) and that it returns a JSON object, which isn't covered by annotations. No contradictions 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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose and follow with return details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the scope, the second specifies the return format and content. No wasted words or 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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if not connected) or usage context, leaving minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the return value. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it efficiently handles the lack of inputs.

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 ('Get current ATEM switcher status') and resource ('ATEM switcher'), listing the exact information returned. It distinguishes from siblings like 'atem_get_audio_state' or 'atem_get_transition_state' by specifying it provides overall status including model info, program/preview inputs, and connection state.

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 retrieving current switcher status, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'atem_get_audio_state' or 'atem_get_transition_state' for more specific status checks. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., connection state) or exclusions is provided.

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