OBSBOT Camera MCP Server

by Radar105

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as center_camera for resetting position, check_system_status for health checks, and control_gimbal for manual movement. However, look_and_analyze and scan_area could be confused as both involve moving the camera and taking snapshots, though scan_area implies a systematic process while look_and_analyze is more targeted.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structures, such as center_camera, check_system_status, and take_snapshot. The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set, with no deviations in style or convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for controlling an OBSBOT camera, covering essential operations like movement, status checks, and snapshots. Each tool appears to earn its place without being overly sparse or bloated, fitting typical server tool ranges.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides good coverage for camera control, including movement (center_camera, control_gimbal, get_gimbal_position), analysis (look_and_analyze, scan_area, take_snapshot), and system checks (check_system_status). A minor gap exists in lacking explicit tools for settings management or advanced configurations, but core workflows are well-supported.
Average 3.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'multiple snapshots' and 'systematically scan', implying a sequence of operations, but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it affects system state, what the output format might be, or any performance considerations like time or resource usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key distinctions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the scanning behavior works, or provide enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use it effectively compared to sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about what 'pattern' or 'steps' mean in context. While 'pattern' has an enum, the description doesn't explain the semantic difference between 'horizontal', 'vertical', etc., or how 'steps' relates to the scanning process.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Systematically scan area with multiple snapshots' states a general purpose (scanning with snapshots) but lacks specificity about what resource is being scanned or how this differs from sibling tools like 'take_snapshot' or 'look_and_analyze'. It uses a clear verb ('scan') but doesn't distinguish itself from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'take_snapshot' (single snapshot) or 'look_and_analyze' (analysis-focused). There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions movement and analysis, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, whether the analysis is real-time or delayed, what happens if parameters are out of range, or if the camera movement is blocking. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with physical and analytical effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that captures the core functionality without any wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose in a minimal format, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (physical camera control with analysis), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like what the analysis returns, error conditions, or practical usage constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in real scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameter documentation. It does not explain what 'pan', 'tilt', 'zoom', or 'analysisPrompt' mean, their units, or how they interact. For example, it's unclear if 'pan' and 'tilt' are in degrees or steps, what 'zoom' levels correspond to, or what the 'analysisPrompt' influences. This fails to add meaningful context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Move camera to position and take analyzed snapshot'), specifying both physical movement and analytical capture. It distinguishes from siblings like 'center_camera' (only movement) and 'take_snapshot' (only capture without analysis), though it could be more explicit about the 'analyzed' aspect versus raw capture.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it combines camera positioning with analytical snapshot capture, but it doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over using separate tools like 'control_gimbal' followed by 'take_snapshot', or when to choose 'scan_area' instead for broader analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional LM Studio analysis but doesn't describe what the tool actually does beyond capturing - whether it saves files, returns image data, requires camera permissions, has rate limits, or what happens when analysis is enabled. Significant behavioral gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a camera capture tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (image data, file path, analysis results), doesn't mention camera requirements or permissions, and provides no context about the visual analysis capabilities or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional LM Studio visual analysis' which aligns with the analyzeWithLM parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as capturing a camera snapshot with optional visual analysis. It specifies the verb 'capture' and resource 'camera snapshot', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'look_and_analyze' or 'scan_area' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over siblings like 'look_and_analyze' or 'scan_area', nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool controls a gimbal with pan/tilt directions, implying a mutation action, but doesn't mention behavioral traits like whether changes are immediate, reversible, require specific permissions, have rate limits, or affect other operations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and parameter meanings. Every word earns its place—there's no fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with essential clarifications.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and directional semantics but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output expectations. For a mutation tool controlling hardware, more completeness would be beneficial to ensure safe and correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (pan, tilt, zoom) with ranges and descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the semantics of pan and tilt directions (e.g., NEGATIVE=RIGHT for pan), which isn't in the schema. However, it doesn't explain the zoom parameter or how parameters interact, keeping it from a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Control camera gimbal', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'center_camera', 'get_gimbal_position', or 'look_and_analyze', which all seem related to camera/gimbal operations. The description is vague about what specific control action it performs beyond the directional hints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'center_camera' (which might reset position) or 'get_gimbal_position' (which might read current state), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for use. The directional hints imply usage for positioning, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific data formats, or indicates error conditions. This is a significant gap for a status-checking tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple status check with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what is checked but doesn't provide details on return values, error handling, or behavioral context, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as checking both camera system health and LM Studio availability, using specific verbs ('check') and resources ('camera system', 'LM Studio'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_gimbal_position' or 'look_and_analyze' that might also provide status information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare it to sibling tools like 'scan_area' or 'look_and_analyze' that might offer overlapping functionality, leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves current position with human-readable directions, implying a read-only operation that returns formatted data. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, latency/rate limits, error conditions (e.g., if camera is offline), or if the data is real-time vs. cached. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get current camera gimbal position') and adds clarifying details ('pan, tilt, zoom' and 'human-readable directions') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and output format, which is sufficient for a simple read operation. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention more behavioral aspects (e.g., real-time nature, potential errors) to be fully complete. It meets the minimum viable standard but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned (pan, tilt, zoom) and the format (human-readable directions), which goes beyond the schema. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description provides useful output context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get current camera gimbal position (pan, tilt, zoom) with human-readable directions.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('camera gimbal position'), and output format ('human-readable directions'), distinguishing it from siblings like control_gimbal (which likely sets position) and take_snapshot (which captures images). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from check_system_status, which might include similar data, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., camera must be powered on), exclusions (e.g., not for historical data), or comparisons to siblings like check_system_status (which might include gimbal position as part of broader status) or look_and_analyze (which might involve positioning). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral outcome (resetting to pan=0, tilt=0, zoom=0), but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether this interrupts other operations), permissions needed, rate limits, or error conditions. It adequately describes the core action but lacks broader context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Return camera to center position') and provides essential details in parentheses. There is no wasted verbiage, and every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic use. It specifies the target state clearly. However, it could benefit from mentioning potential side effects or error handling, which would enhance completeness for a control operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the exact center position values (pan=0, tilt=0, zoom=0), which clarifies the semantics beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Return camera to center position') and specifies the exact resource/state (pan=0, tilt=0, zoom=0). It distinguishes from siblings like 'control_gimbal' or 'get_gimbal_position' by focusing on resetting to a predefined center rather than arbitrary control or querying.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the camera needs to be centered, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'control_gimbal' for manual adjustments or 'look_and_analyze' for targeted positioning. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![obsbot-camera-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Radar105/obsbot-camera-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Radar105/obsbot-camera-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![obsbot-camera-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Radar105/obsbot-camera-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Radar105/obsbot-camera-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Radar105/obsbot-camera-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server