ATEM MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the 0-based indexing convention for aux outputs, which is crucial for correct usage. Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation, but the description reinforces the routing behavior without contradiction. No rate limits or auth needs are mentioned, but the annotations cover the essential safety profile.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement first, followed by parameter explanations with important implementation details (0-based indexing), then practical usage examples. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 2-parameter routing tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides excellent context about what the tool does and when to use it. The only minor gap is the lack of output information (no output schema exists), but for a simple routing operation, the description is nearly complete. The practical examples compensate well for the missing output details.

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 both parameters. The description repeats the aux parameter's 0-based indexing but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 ('Route an input source to an auxiliary output') and resource ('auxiliary output'), distinguishing it from siblings like atem_set_preview or atem_set_program which route to different outputs. It uses precise technical language appropriate for the domain.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Common uses: sending a clean feed to a recorder, routing a specific camera to a confidence monitor'), giving practical examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., atem_set_preview for preview bus routing).

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