scene_item_listRetrieve a complete list of sources or items in a specified OBS scene by providing its name or UUID.
List every source/item in a scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sceneId | No | OBS scene UUID. | |
| sceneName | No | OBS scene 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral detail (e.g., error handling, ordering, or scope limits). Given the strong annotation coverage, the bar is lower, and the description meets it without adding significant value beyond purpose restatement.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core function efficiently. It could potentially be expanded with a brief note on parameters, but for a simple list operation, this length is appropriate.
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 has an output schema that likely describes the return format, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks guidance on the optional parameters (e.g., providing both vs. one, error behavior when neither is given) and doesn't mention the distinction between sceneId and sceneName. These gaps are notable for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool correctly.
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 100% – both sceneId and sceneName have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage notes about these parameters (e.g., which to use, mutual exclusivity, or default behavior). This is the baseline 3 since the schema already documents them.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('source/item in a scene'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like scene_list (lists scenes) and input_list (lists inputs). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings or clarify that 'source/item' refers to scene items that reference sources, leaving slight ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with OBS terminology.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scene_list, input_list). The optional nature of both parameters (sceneId and sceneName) is not explained – the description doesn't say what happens if both are omitted or which one takes precedence. An agent receives no direction on parameter selection or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.