ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation tool (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true). The description adds valuable context by explaining that DSKs 'overlay graphics (logos, lower thirds, etc.) on top of the program output,' which clarifies the tool's effect beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 brief explanation of DSKs, and then a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 parameters, mutation operation) and rich annotations (covering idempotency, destructiveness, etc.), the description is mostly complete. It explains what DSKs do and how to use the tool, but lacks output details (no output schema) and does not address potential side effects or error handling, which could be useful for an agent.

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 (dsk and onAir) fully documented in the schema. The description repeats this information in the Args section but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of when to toggle onAir or implications of dsk values. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Put a downstream keyer on or off air') and resource ('DSKs overlay graphics on top of the program output'), distinguishing it from siblings like atem_set_dsk_sources (which sets sources) and atem_set_usk_on_air (which handles upstream keyers). It provides precise context about what DSKs are used for.

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 for controlling DSK on/off states but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like atem_auto_dsk (which may automate DSK operations) or atem_set_dsk_sources (which configures DSK content). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context inferred rather than clearly defined.

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