Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OBS MCP

OBS MCP

by Tom-R-Main
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Hybrid

Trigger Hotkey by Name

obs-trigger-hotkey-by-name
Destructive

Triggers an OBS Studio hotkey by its name. Use this tool to activate predefined hotkeys through MCP for automated OBS control.

Instructions

Triggers a hotkey using its name

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "hotkeyName": "<hotkeyName>"
    },
    "name": "obs-trigger-hotkey-by-name"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hotkeyNameYesName of the hotkey to trigger
contextNameNoName of context of the hotkey to trigger

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description does not contradict the annotations; it aligns with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true. However, it adds little beyond 'triggering by name' and does not warn that the triggered hotkey may perform arbitrary or destructive actions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant explanation. 'Triggers a hotkey using its name' is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

The tool is simple and the annotations provide useful safety context, but the description would be more complete if it pointed to hotkey discovery via obs-get-hotkey-list or warned that triggering a named hotkey may yield arbitrary side effects.

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 hotkeyName and contextName are already described in the input schema. The tool description only reinforces that triggering is name-based and contributes no additional parameter-level insight beyond 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 action: 'Triggers a hotkey using its name.' It also distinguishes this from the sibling obs-trigger-hotkey-by-key-sequence by emphasizing name-based triggering, though the wording mostly restates the tool title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that hotkey names can be discovered via obs-get-hotkey-list, nor does it contrast with obs-trigger-hotkey-by-key-sequence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools