ATEM MCP Server

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it specifies the action is to stop streaming, which implies it affects an active process. Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not open-world, idempotent, and not destructive, but the description clarifies the operational target (streaming), which is valuable for understanding its behavioral impact in the ATEM system.

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 extremely concise ('Stop streaming on the ATEM.'), consisting of a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose without any unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and target.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool does, but could slightly improve by mentioning idempotency or confirming no parameters are needed, though annotations already cover this.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no additional parameter information is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate, but it could slightly enhance clarity by noting no parameters are required. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it adequately handles the lack of parameters.

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 ('Stop streaming') and the target resource ('on the ATEM'), using a precise verb+resource combination. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'atem_start_streaming' (which initiates streaming) and 'atem_stop_recording' (which stops recording rather than streaming).

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 by specifying 'on the ATEM' and the action 'Stop streaming', suggesting it should be used when streaming is active and needs to be halted. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if streaming is already stopped) or name alternatives, though the sibling tool 'atem_start_streaming' provides a clear counterpart.

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