ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds context by specifying it sets sources for a 'downstream keyer', which clarifies the tool's domain. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects beyond what annotations cover, missing some 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 one clear sentence, followed by a structured parameter list. However, the parameter section duplicates schema information without adding value, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's well-organized but could be more concise by omitting redundant details.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema), annotations cover safety and idempotency well. The description provides adequate purpose and parameter overview, but lacks details on error conditions, return values, or integration with sibling tools, leaving some gaps for full agent understanding.

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 all parameters documented in the schema. The description repeats the schema's parameter explanations verbatim ('fillSource (number, optional): Input to use as fill source'), adding no additional meaning or usage context beyond what's already structured.

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 ('Set') and target resources ('fill and/or key sources for a downstream keyer'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'atem_set_dsk_on_air' (which controls on-air state) and 'atem_set_usk_sources' (which is for upstream keyers), providing precise differentiation.

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 configuring downstream keyer sources, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'atem_set_usk_sources' or 'atem_set_dsk_on_air'. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from tool names alone.

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