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-idempotent, non-destructive operation, which the description aligns with by describing a state-changing action. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it doesn't mention potential side effects, timing considerations, or error conditions. With annotations covering basic safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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 clear analogy. The parameter section is brief and directly relevant. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool with two parameters, 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering basic behavioral hints, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the combined action and when to use it. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values or potential errors, leaving a minor gap in full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('input' and 'me') fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter definitions verbatim from the schema without adding extra meaning or context. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description adds no additional semantic value.

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: 'sets a preview input then immediately triggers an auto transition to bring it on air.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'atem_set_preview' (only sets preview) and 'atem_auto_transition' (only triggers auto transition) by combining both operations. The analogy 'Equivalent to selecting a source and pressing AUTO' reinforces the purpose.

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 positions this as a 'Convenience tool' and names the equivalent manual action ('selecting a source and pressing AUTO'). This provides clear context for when to use it: when you want to both set preview and trigger an auto transition in one step, avoiding separate calls to sibling tools like 'atem_set_preview' and 'atem_auto_transition'.

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