ATEM MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool stops a 'currently running' macro, which implies it only works when a macro is active. Annotations already indicate it's non-destructive, idempotent, and not read-only, but the description provides operational context that enhances understanding of when the tool is applicable.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the essential information ('Stop the currently running macro'). There is no wasted language, and it directly addresses the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple, parameterless tool with annotations covering safety (non-destructive, idempotent) and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It specifies the action and context ('currently running'), though it could slightly enhance completeness by mentioning what happens after stopping (e.g., if the macro can be resumed).

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that no parameters are needed by focusing on the action ('Stop the currently running macro') without mentioning any inputs, which is appropriate and adds clarity for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Stop') and target resource ('the currently running macro'), distinguishing it from siblings like atem_macro_continue and atem_macro_run. It uses precise language that directly conveys the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool: 'Stop the currently running macro.' This implies it should be used only when a macro is actively running, distinguishing it from alternatives like atem_macro_run (to start) or atem_macro_continue (to resume). The context is clear and specific.

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