ipcam-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Reload cameras.toml

reload_cameras

Idempotent

Re-read cameras.toml after manual edits and list the updated cameras in the same format as list_cameras, so configuration changes apply without restarting the server.

Instructions

Re-read cameras.toml after it was edited by hand and list the cameras, in the same format as list_cameras.

Tool call template

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": "reload_cameras"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false; the description explains why it is not read-only by disclosing that it re-reads a file from disk edited manually outside the tool. It still does not say what happens if the file is malformed or whether unsaved in-memory changes are discarded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the trigger, the action, and the return-shape reference; no filler.

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?

With an output schema present and a stated equivalence to list_cameras' format, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The only gap is failure behavior on a bad file, which the output schema would not convey.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed.

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 names a specific action (re-read cameras.toml) and its result (list the cameras), and pins the output shape by referencing list_cameras. It does not explicitly say how it differs from list_cameras beyond the 'edited by hand' trigger, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'After it was edited by hand' gives a concrete trigger for choosing this tool over list_cameras, which the agent can infer reads the already-loaded state. There is no explicit when-not condition or statement that no reload is needed otherwise, keeping it short of a 5.

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