ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that it configures 'built-in audio mixer' settings and explaining the behavioral meaning of 'afv' mode ('audio is live only when this input is on program'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like audio disruption during changes or whether changes persist across power cycles.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool does, and the parameter section provides necessary context. However, the parameter section could be more concise since the schema already covers this information comprehensively.

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 configuration tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering safety aspects, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains the tool's purpose and the meaning of 'afv' mode, but lacks information about error conditions, what happens when optional parameters are omitted, or typical use cases. Without an output schema, some description of expected responses would be helpful.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all parameters with descriptions, ranges, and enum values. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only slightly elaborating on 'afv' mode. It doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, defaults for optional parameters, or practical usage examples.

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 an audio input'), the resource ('ATEM's built-in audio mixer'), and the specific properties being set ('gain, balance, and whether the input is on, off, or in audio-follow-video mode'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'atem_get_audio_state' (which reads audio state) and 'atem_set_audio_master_output' (which configures master output rather than individual inputs).

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 configuring audio input properties on an ATEM mixer, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'atem_set_audio_master_output' for master output settings. It mentions the 'afv' mode context ('audio is live only when this input is on program'), which gives some situational awareness, but lacks explicit when/when-not recommendations or prerequisite information.

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