ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), but the description adds valuable context: it explains the manual nature of the operation ('like moving the T-bar') and the practical use case ('manual fades'), which helps the agent understand behavioral nuances beyond the structured hints.

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 concise 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's use and parameters without redundancy or fluff.

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 (manual transition control), annotations provide safety and idempotency info, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds context on usage and behavior, but lacks output details (no output schema) and could more explicitly differentiate from siblings, leaving minor gaps.

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 clear parameter documentation in the schema. The description's 'Args' section repeats this information without adding significant meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it restates the position range and ME default). This meets the baseline of 3 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 verb 'set' and the resource 'transition position', with the parenthetical 'like moving the T-bar' providing a concrete analogy. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'atem_auto_transition' (automatic) and 'atem_set_transition_rate' (speed) by emphasizing manual control for fades.

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 explicitly states 'Useful for manual fades', providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'atem_auto_transition' for automated transitions), which prevents a perfect score.

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