ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds some context by specifying what gets configured (master output level) but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 appropriately sized with a clear main sentence followed by parameter details. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the Args section could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, but minor structural improvements are possible.

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 moderate complexity (2 optional parameters), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks output information (no schema provided) and deeper behavioral context. It covers the basics but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of output details or advanced usage scenarios.

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 well-documented in the schema (gain range, followFadeToBlack meaning). The description's Args section repeats this information without adding significant semantic value beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors.

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 ('Configure') and resource ('master audio output level'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'atem_set_audio_mixer_input' which handles individual inputs rather than the master output. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 sibling tools like 'atem_get_audio_state' for checking current settings or 'atem_fade_to_black' for related functionality, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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