List all OBS scenes and identify which is live in program and which is previewed.
List every scene, and which one is currently live (program) and previewed.
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": "obs_list_scenes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the read nature and the output behavior (identifying which scene is program vs previewed). It doesn't cover edge cases like preview state when studio mode is off, but for a 0-parameter list operation, the transparency is strong.
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?
A single 14-word sentence that front-loads the verb 'List' and includes only essential details. The parenthetical clarification of OBS terminology ('live (program)') earns its place. Zero wasted words.
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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description captures the essential contract: the full scene list plus the program/preview state of each. It could elaborate on return format or null preview states, but the scope of this tool is small enough that the description is largely sufficient.
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 tool has 0 parameters (empty schema with 100% coverage), so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description rightly focuses on behavior rather than parameters, and there is nothing in the schema for it to supplement.
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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List every scene') and adds the key differentiator: program/preview status. It distinguishes itself from siblings like obs_list_sources_in_scene and obs_switch_scene by making the listing scope and state annotation explicit.
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 through purpose: an agent can infer when to call this (need scene list with live/preview state). However, there are no explicit when-not-to-use statements or mentions of alternatives, such as pointing to obs_list_sources_in_scene for source-level listings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.