ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide critical behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), but the description adds valuable context by specifying this applies to 'auto transitions' and listing the five specific style options. This clarifies the tool's scope beyond what annotations alone convey, though it doesn't mention side effects like visual changes or timing considerations.

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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a concise Args section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The two-sentence format efficiently communicates essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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, one optional), comprehensive annotations, and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It clearly states what the tool does and lists parameter options, though it doesn't explain return values (no output schema exists) or provide deeper guidance about transition behavior. For a configuration tool with good structured data, this is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters (style with enum values, me with range and default). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely restating the style options and default ME value without providing additional semantic context like what each transition style looks like or when to use specific ME values.

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 style') and resource ('for auto transitions'), with explicit enumeration of the five possible style values. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'atem_set_transition_position' and 'atem_set_transition_rate' by focusing specifically on style selection rather than position or rate adjustment.

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 context ('for auto transitions') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'atem_auto_transition' or 'atem_cut'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and description alone.

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