ipcam-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Move a camera to a scene

set_scene

Moves a camera to another watched scene; snapshots remain with the earlier scene, and comparisons apply only within the current scene.

Instructions

Move a camera to another scene (the place it watches). Its earlier snapshots stay with the earlier scene; camera_compare only compares within the current scene.

If removed cameras watched that scene, the user is asked in a form whether this camera replaces one of them (it then continues that camera's compare and baselines). Call it with the camera's current scene to answer that question later.

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": {
      "camera": "<camera>",
      "scene": "<scene>"
    },
    "name": "set_scene"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scene`	Yes
`camera`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the key side effect: earlier snapshots stay bound to the earlier scene, and removed cameras that watched the target scene trigger a user form asking whether this camera replaces one (inheriting its compare and baselines). This is exactly the kind of consequence-of-invocation detail annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded and generally tight, but the second paragraph is convoluted: 'Call it with the camera's current scene to answer that question later' is hard to parse without re-reading and its connection to the preceding sentence is implicit rather than stated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile; the description fills in the mutation side effects an agent would otherwise miss. It stops short of covering argument identification or what happens on an invalid camera/scene, which for a two-required-parameter mutation is a modest gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry meaning; it does define 'scene' precisely as the place the camera watches, which is the ambiguous parameter. However, the 'camera' parameter is never characterized (name vs ID, whether it must already exist), leaving half the undocumented surface unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move a camera to another scene') and immediately disambiguates the overloaded term with '(the place it watches)'. An agent can distinguish this from list_scenes or scene_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explains a non-obvious invocation case: call it with the camera's current scene to later answer the replacement prompt, and clarifies that camera_compare only operates within the current scene. It gives clear context for when the call matters, but does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name a direct alternative for the plain move case.

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