obs-start-recordStart recording in OBS Studio by initiating the record output.
Starts the record output
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "obs-start-record"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the annotations: readOnlyHint=false already signals a state change, and the description merely restates that it starts something. It does not disclose error behavior when already recording, where output goes, or whether the recording must be configured first.
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 a single short sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and immediately front-loads the action.
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—no parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotation—the description is nearly complete for invocation purposes. It could mention recording-state preconditions, but the name, title, and sibling set provide enough context for a competent agent to select and call it correctly.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description bears no obligation to explain parameters. The absence of parameters is itself fully documented by the schema, making the description's silence acceptable.
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 'Starts the record output' identifies a clear action ('starts') and a resource ('record output'), and the verb distinguishes it from toggle/stop siblings. It is slightly domain-specific and does not explicitly name 'recording' or contrast with obs-toggle-record, but the title and context make the purpose clear.
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 given about when to use this tool versus obs-toggle-record, obs-stop-record, or obs-start-output. The description only states the action and does not mention preconditions such as 'only when recording is not already active'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.