ATEM MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying prerequisites ('requires streaming to be configured') and hardware constraints ('available on models with streaming capability'), which are not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core action and prerequisite, the second adds hardware constraint. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential context 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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple action with prerequisites), no output schema, and rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is mostly complete. It adds key context like configuration and hardware requirements. A minor gap is lack of explicit mention of idempotency or potential outcomes, but annotations cover this, making it adequate.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter details since none exist, focusing instead on prerequisites and constraints, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 action ('Start streaming') and resource ('on the ATEM'), specifying it's for models with streaming capability. It distinguishes from the sibling 'atem_stop_streaming' by action, though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other control tools like 'atem_start_recording' beyond the resource scope.

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 implied usage context by stating it 'requires streaming to be configured in ATEM Software Control' and is 'available on models with streaming capability', which helps determine when it's applicable. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'atem_stop_streaming' or other control tools, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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