atem_edl_statusCheck EDL logging status: confirm if logging is active, view current timecode, count switches and markers, and identify the output file.
Show whether EDL logging is running, the current timecode, number of switches and markers logged, and the output file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful detail about the returned status fields, but does not explain behavior when logging is not running or when the device is disconnected, so it adds only modest context beyond 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?
A single front-loaded sentence lists the returned information with no wasted words. Every clause contributes to understanding what the status call provides.
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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only status tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete because it names the returned fields. It could be slightly stronger by noting behavior when logging is inactive or the device is not connected, but no essential calling information is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline score of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('EDL logging'), enumerating exactly what status is returned: running state, timecode, switch/marker counts, and output file. It is clearly distinct in intent from siblings like atem_edl_start, atem_edl_stop, and atem_edl_marker, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 by the status-oriented wording: an agent can infer this is the read path for EDL logging while start/stop/marker are the mutation paths. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as an active connection, and no direct routing to alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.