Save a disarmed automation trigger for vMix. Define event-based actions—such as input changes, overlay toggles, or playback controls—to run later when armed.
Save a DISARMED MCP-managed trigger. Events are polled state changes, not native vMix triggers. playback_stopped includes manual pauses; playback_time can detect seeks. Default one-shot per arm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| trigger | 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 this as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: events are polled state changes, playback_stopped includes manual pauses, playback_time can detect seeks, and the default is one-shot per arm. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not detail save-related side effects such as overwrite semantics.
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?
Three sentences, no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral clarifications are packed into the remaining sentences without redundancy.
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 description is helpful for event selection and the disarmed state, and the schema covers structure well. Still, with no output schema, the description does not state what a successful save returns, whether saving an existing id overwrites it, or how the saved trigger is later armed. These are meaningful gaps for a complex, destructive mutation tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying event semantics and the default one-shot behavior, which maps to max_fires. However, it does not explain the dry_run parameter or how the trigger object's lifecycle relates to saving, leaving a gap despite the rich schema.
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 names a specific verb ('Save'), a resource ('MCP-managed trigger'), and a clear state ('DISARMED'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like vmix_trigger_arm and vmix_trigger_delete, and clarifies that this is not a native vMix trigger.
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?
The phrase 'Save a DISARMED MCP-managed trigger' implies the intended workflow of persisting before arming, and 'Default one-shot per arm' hints at lifecycle. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus vmix_trigger_arm or vmix_trigger_delete, leaving the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.