atem_get_recording_statusRetrieve the ATEM's current recording and streaming status to verify whether capture or broadcast is active.
Get the current recording and streaming status from the ATEM.
| 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 cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's burden is lower. It adds value by specifying the scope ('recording and streaming status'), but does not disclose additional context like rate limits, error conditions, or what 'status' entails beyond the 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, annotations provided, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on return values or error handling, which could be helpful for an agent, though annotations reduce the need for extensive explanation.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's function without redundant details, earning a near-perfect score for clarity in a parameterless context.
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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('current recording and streaming status from the ATEM'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'atem_get_status' or 'atem_get_audio_state', which might provide overlapping status information, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'atem_get_status' and 'atem_start_recording', there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.