atem_list_macrosLists every macro defined on an ATEM switcher as JSON, including each macro’s index, name, and valid/used status, so you can inspect available macros before triggering or managing them.
List all defined macros on the ATEM switcher.
Returns: JSON array of macros with their index, name, and whether they are valid/used.
| 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 indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context by specifying the return format ('JSON array of macros with their index, name, and whether they are valid/used'). This clarifies what data is returned, which annotations do not cover. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second details the return format. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and efficiently 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, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, output details, and behavioral context, which is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke this tool correctly without needing additional 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 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's output instead, adding value beyond the empty input schema.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('all defined macros on the ATEM switcher'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like atem_macro_run, atem_macro_stop, and atem_macro_continue by focusing on listing rather than executing or controlling macros.
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 needing to retrieve macro information, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., whether the switcher must be connected) or exclusions, though the context of listing macros is clear from the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.