obs-test-connectionTest the connection to OBS WebSocket to confirm it is active and responsive.
Test the connection to OBS WebSocket
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-test-connection"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond this, such as what happens on failed connection (exception vs false return) or whether it might block. Since it adds no new information, it fails to go beyond the structured data.
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, direct sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose immediately and contains no unnecessary information. Perfectly appropriate for a tool this simple.
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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a clear, straightforward purpose, the description provides adequate information on its own. However, it omits what the result indicates (e.g., success/failure semantics), which could be helpful, but this is not critical for a basic connectivity test. The overall context is sufficient.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's action rather than parameters. There is nothing to add about parameter semantics.
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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Test the connection to OBS WebSocket'. It is distinguishable from all sibling tools, which are all about specific actions or queries, making this the only connectivity check.
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. The description only states what it does, not when it should be called (e.g., before other OBS operations to verify reachability) or any prerequisites. This gap is significant given the tool's diagnostic nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.