ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable context about USK applications and the default ME bus, enhancing understanding beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or visual feedback mechanisms.

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 parameter details. The first sentence effectively communicates the core functionality. However, the parameter section could be more integrated rather than a separate 'Args' block, and some redundancy exists with the schema.

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 mutation tool with good annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) and full parameter documentation, the description provides adequate context. It explains USK applications and the tool's role. The main gap is lack of output information (no output schema), but for a simple state-change operation, the description 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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description's 'Args' section largely repeats schema information, adding only minor clarification about '0 = Key 1' for usk. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significant added value.

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 ('Put an upstream keyer on or off air') and the target resource ('on a specific ME bus'), with additional context about USK applications. It distinguishes from siblings like atem_set_dsk_on_air (downstream keyer) and atem_set_usk_sources (configuring sources rather than on-air state).

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 controlling USK on-air states but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives. It mentions USK applications (picture-in-picture, etc.) which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to other transition/keying tools.

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