atem_macro_runTriggers a saved Blackmagic ATEM macro using its 0-based slot index, enabling MCP clients to execute switcher sequences on demand.
Run an ATEM macro by index number.
Args:
index (number): Macro slot number (0-based, so macro 0 = first macro slot)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | Macro index (0-based) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds that it runs a macro by index, implying it triggers an action sequence, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like potential side effects, execution time, or error conditions beyond what annotations provide.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary words, though the parameter explanation could be integrated more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args' section.
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 (executing a macro), lack of output schema, and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error handling, or interaction with other tools like 'atem_list_macros', leaving gaps for an agent to infer usage.
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 'index' parameter's type, range, and 0-based nature. The description repeats this information without adding meaningful context like macro slot mapping or execution consequences, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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 action ('Run') and resource ('ATEM macro'), specifying it's executed by index number. It distinguishes from siblings like 'atem_macro_continue' and 'atem_macro_stop' by focusing on initiation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other macro-related tools beyond the name.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'atem_macro_continue' or 'atem_macro_stop', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a connected ATEM device or macro availability. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.