ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as clarifying the rate is in frames with examples (30fps=1 second), but doesn't mention side effects, error conditions, or confirmation of changes. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich 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 the first sentence, followed by a clear, bulleted list of parameters with helpful examples. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, 2 required), 100% schema coverage, and annotations providing safety context, the description is adequate but lacks output information (no output schema) and doesn't fully address usage context or error handling. It's complete enough for basic use but leaves gaps for robust agent operation.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds practical examples for the 'rate' parameter (e.g., '30 = 1 second at 30fps'), which clarifies semantics beyond the schema's technical definition. However, it doesn't explain the 'style' enum values or 'me' default implications in detail, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 transition duration/rate') and resource ('for a specific transition type'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'atem_set_transition_style' which configures style rather than rate. The verb 'Set' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'atem_set_transition_style' or 'atem_auto_transition'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing to be connected via 'atem_connect') or typical workflows, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.