atem_start_recordingStarts recording on a compatible Blackmagic ATEM switcher with connected USB storage, enabling natural-language MCP control to capture live output.
Start recording on the ATEM (requires USB storage connected to the switcher). Available on models with recording capability.
| 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?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies hardware prerequisites (USB storage) and model limitations. Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true), but the description provides practical constraints not covered by 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core action and prerequisite, the second adds model capability information. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 zero-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers prerequisites and constraints well. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning what happens when recording is already active (though idempotentHint suggests it's safe to call repeatedly).
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 would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none, focusing instead on operational prerequisites.
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 specific action ('Start recording') and the target resource ('on the ATEM'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'atem_stop_recording' and 'atem_start_streaming'. It provides precise scope by mentioning the required hardware (USB storage) and model capability constraints.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when USB storage is connected and the ATEM model has recording capability. However, it doesn't provide guidance on when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'atem_stop_recording' for stopping an ongoing recording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.