Save reusable transition presets for vMix by defining an effect, duration, and name. Use this tool to store custom transitions for later application, simplifying scene changes.
Save a reusable MCP transition preset. Also use transition_configure if you want to modify a native vMix button.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| effect | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| duration_ms | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'save' – it does not mention overwriting an existing preset, the semantics of dry_run, or side effects. With a destructive write, an agent would benefit from explicit overwrite behavior.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the alternative is stated second. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple enough that the core action is clear, and the schema provides all parameter constraints. However, no output schema exists, and the description omits overwrite/dry_run semantics, which matter for a destructive save operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not describe any parameter, including the non-obvious dry_run flag, the meaning of effect values, or the name pattern. The schema property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description itself compensates for the low schema coverage only by hinting at the overall purpose.
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?
States a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('reusable MCP transition preset'), and explicitly contrasts with transition_configure, which targets native vMix buttons. An agent can immediately distinguish the tool's role from its closest sibling.
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?
Names an alternative, transition_configure, and gives a condition for choosing it rather than this tool. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use conditions for other siblings, such as vmix_transition for applying transitions, but the core use case is clear from the first sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.