ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, which the description aligns with by implying a state change (continuing). However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it doesn't specify effects like whether it resumes from a pause point or requires specific conditions, though with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place by clearly stating the action 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 complexity (a state-changing operation with no parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, prerequisites, or output, which could be helpful for an agent, though annotations provide some safety context.

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 doesn't add param info, which is fine here, but it doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none—baseline 4 is appropriate for zero 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 ('Continue') and resource ('a paused macro'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'atem_macro_run' or 'atem_macro_stop', which would require more context about what distinguishes continuing from running or stopping a macro.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a macro must be paused first) or compare it to siblings like 'atem_macro_run' or 'atem_macro_stop', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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