audio_mixer_mute_toggleToggle mute for an OBS audio input and return its complete mixer state.
Toggle mute for one OBS audio input and return its complete mixer state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputId | No | OBS input UUID. | |
| inputName | No | OBS input name. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It does add that the tool returns the complete mixer state, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose any side effects beyond toggling mute or any limitations.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Toggle mute') and includes the return behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers the core action and return. However, it omits clarification on parameter usage (both optional, possibly one suffices), which could confuse an agent. This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a clear description ('OBS input UUID' and 'OBS input name'). The description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage, such as whether one is preferred over the other or if both are needed. It remains at baseline for well-documented schema.
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 states a specific action (toggle mute) on a specific resource (OBS audio input) and clearly mentions the return of the complete mixer state. It distinguishes from siblings like audio_mixer_get/set by specifying 'toggle' as a unique operation.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus audio_mixer_set or audio_mixer_get. The description does not mention any selection criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.