atem_cutInstantly switches the preview source to program on a Blackmagic ATEM switcher, performing a hard cut transition. Specify the Mix Effect bus to target ME1, ME2, or another bus.
Perform a hard cut transition — instantly switches preview to program.
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 cover key behavioral traits (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-openWorld). The description adds context about the transition being 'hard' and 'instant', which clarifies the action beyond annotations, but doesn't detail side effects like on-air changes or rate limits.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a brief parameter note. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated for optimal flow.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a single optional parameter) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but could benefit from more context on effects (e.g., immediate on-air change) or error conditions, as annotations don't fully cover behavioral nuances.
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%, with the schema fully documenting the 'me' parameter. The description adds minimal value by noting it's optional with a default, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.
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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('perform a hard cut transition') and resource ('preview to program'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'atem_auto_transition' or 'atem_set_transition_style' which imply different transition types or configurations.
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 for instant switching from preview to program, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'atem_auto_transition' or 'atem_set_transition_style', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.