obs_statusVerify OBS connectivity and retrieve obs-websocket versions along with active range playbacks.
Connect to OBS and return OBS/obs-websocket versions plus active range playbacks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds the specific return payload (versions and range playbacks), which goes beyond annotations. It does not mention connection management or error cases, but for a read-only status fetch this is adequate.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action (Connect to OBS) and then states the output precisely. There is no redundant information, and every word adds value.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema already provided, the description covers all necessary knowledge: what it does, what it returns, and implicitly its read-only nature. Nothing is missing to decide whether to invoke it. It is fully self-contained.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, meaning there is nothing for the description to add. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly remains silent, avoiding unnecessary filler.
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 specifies a concrete action (connect to OBS) and the exact resource, then enumerates the output (OBS/obs-websocket versions plus active range playbacks). It clearly separates this status tool from siblings like scene_list or media_play, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 when connection status, versions, or range playback state are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. With multiple sibling tools, this ambiguity could be improved, though this is the only status-centric tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.