atem_auto_transitionTrigger an automated transition from preview to program on a Blackmagic ATEM switcher using current settings, with optional Mix Effect bus selection.
Trigger an auto transition (dissolve, wipe, etc.) from preview to program using the current transition settings.
Args:
me (number, optional): Mix Effect bus number (default: 0 for ME1)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| me | No | Mix Effect bus (0=ME1, 1=ME2, etc.) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent action. The description adds useful context about using 'current transition settings' and the preview-to-program flow, but doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., on-air changes), rate limits, or authentication needs. 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 sentences: first states purpose clearly, second documents the single parameter. Efficient and front-loaded, though the Args section is somewhat redundant given the schema. 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?
For a single-parameter action tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety profile, the description is adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what happens after triggering (e.g., success confirmation, error conditions). Could benefit from more behavioral context.
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%, so the schema fully documents the 'me' parameter. The description's Args section repeats the schema info without adding meaningful semantics beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the specific action ('trigger an auto transition'), specifies the transition types ('dissolve, wipe, etc.'), and defines the scope ('from preview to program using current transition settings'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'atem_cut' (immediate cut) and 'atem_preview_and_auto' (sets preview then auto transitions).
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 wanting to execute a transition with current settings, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'atem_cut' (for immediate cuts) or 'atem_set_transition_position' (for manual control). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.