atem_list_looksLists all saved Super Source looks with their names, descriptions, creation dates, and active box counts to help review available ATEM configurations.
List all saved Super Source looks. Shows each look's name, description, creation date, and number of active boxes.
Looks are stored in ~/.atem-mcp/looks/ as JSON files.
| 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, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: the fields each look reports (name, description, creation date, active box count) and where the data lives on disk. It stops short of describing ordering or behavior on an empty store.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then return fields, then storage location. No filler or repetition.
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?
With zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden itself and does so by enumerating the reported fields. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.
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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing further the description could clarify. The added note about the JSON storage path is a bonus rather than a parameter concern.
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?
States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("saved Super Source looks"), which is clearly distinguishable from the save/load/delete siblings by verb alone. It doesn't explicitly name or route away from those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of atem_load_look / atem_delete_look as the natural follow-up actions. Usage is only implied by the nature of a list operation over saved looks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.