ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral information (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context about what 'program' means ('live/on-air') and provides concrete examples of input IDs, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like error conditions, permission requirements, or rate limits that would be valuable beyond the annotations.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place: the first establishes the core function, the Args section provides essential parameter context, and the Common input IDs section offers practical reference without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool does, documents parameters thoroughly with examples, and gives practical input ID references. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure or return values, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by providing concrete examples of input values (e.g., '1=Input 1, 1000=Color Bars, 2001=Color 1') and clarifying the optional 'me' parameter's default behavior ('default: 0 for ME1'), which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 the program input') and identifies the target resource ('ATEM switcher'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'atem_set_preview' (which sets preview input) and 'atem_set_aux_source' (which sets auxiliary outputs) by focusing exclusively on the program/live output.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to change what's currently live/on-air) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It provides context about the ATEM switcher environment but lacks explicit exclusion guidance compared to tools like 'atem_set_preview' for preview changes.

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