media_listList OBS media source inputs to obtain persistent UUIDs for targeted playback control.
List Media Source (ffmpeg_source) inputs. mediaId is the persistent OBS input UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeSettings | No |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the fact that mediaId is persistent, which is useful for later references but does not describe any other behavior like pagination or filtering. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the mediaId note adds relevant context without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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 with one optional parameter and has an output schema, so the return format is covered. However, the includeSettings parameter is completely unexplained, which is a notable gap for an agent to know how to use the tool correctly. Adequate but not fully 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the includeSettings parameter at all. The parameter's meaning is left entirely to inference from its name. With zero coverage and no compensatory explanation, the description adds no value for parameter understanding.
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 'List Media Source (ffmpeg_source) inputs' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from scene_list and input_list. It also notes the persistent mediaId, which differentiates the output semantics from other media tools.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose: to list media sources. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like input_list or media_info, nor any exclusions. The context of siblings suggests it, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.