ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, which the description aligns with by using 'Get'. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the return format ('JSON with current transition style, rates per type, and whether a transition is currently in progress') and the default parameter value, enhancing transparency without contradiction.

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. Every sentence adds specific value without redundancy, making it efficient 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 low complexity (one optional parameter), rich annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, the parameter, and the return format. A slight gap exists in not detailing potential error cases or system-specific constraints, but it suffices for basic use.

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 the schema fully documenting the 'me' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the default value (0 for ME1) and implying the parameter's optionality, but does not provide additional semantic details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get current transition settings') and resources ('for a Mix Effect bus'), including what information is retrieved ('style, rates, and in-transition status'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like atem_set_transition_style or atem_set_transition_rate by focusing on retrieval rather than modification.

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 needing to check transition settings, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like atem_get_status or other get_* tools. It provides clear context by specifying the target (Mix Effect bus) but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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