OBS Control MCP

by DaisukeDaisuke

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Get media status

media_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get current playback state, duration, cursor position, and range-playback metadata for an OBS media input.

Instructions

Get media playback state, duration, cursor, and active range-playback metadata.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "media_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mediaId`	No	Media ID. This is the OBS input UUID returned by media_add/media_list.
`mediaName`	No	OBS media input name.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`error`	No
`result`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific data points returned (state, duration, cursor, range-playback metadata), which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., behavior when both parameters are omitted), but given the read-only nature, this is acceptable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the specific outputs. There is zero waste; every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has only two optional parameters and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. The description covers the essential function and the annotations cover safety. It does not clarify how to choose between mediaId and mediaName or what happens if neither is provided, but these are minor gaps for a simple read-only getter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (mediaId and mediaName) clearly documented in the schema, including that mediaId is an OBS input UUID. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('media playback state') and enumerates the exact data returned (state, duration, cursor, active range-playback metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like media_info (which likely covers general media metadata) and media_play/media_seek (which modify state).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving playback state, implying its use when that information is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous and no competing sibling is obviously intended for the same task. The lack of explicit 'when not to use' is a minor gap.

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