Add or overwrite a go2rtc stream by name from a source URL to dynamically register or update camera feeds.
Dynamically add or overwrite a stream on go2rtc (PUT /api/streams).
Rejects exec:, echo:, and expr: sources unless GO2RTC_ALLOW_EXEC_STREAMS=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_url | Yes | ||
| stream_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose upsert semantics (existing streams can be overwritten) and the exec/echo/expr rejection gated by GO2RTC_ALLOW_EXEC_STREAMS, but omits permission/auth requirements and what happens to an existing stream's configuration when overwritten.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint before the exception rule. Nothing is padded, though the raw endpoint notation adds little for an agent that only needs the tool name.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the key upsert behavior is covered. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and fully undocumented parameters, more on auth, overwrite side effects, and source_url format would be needed for full completeness.
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% for two required parameters, and the description never explains stream_name or source_url. Mentioning exec:/echo:/expr: sources hints at accepted URL schemes, but format expectations (single vs multiple sources, rtsp:// etc.) remain undocumented in both places.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('add or overwrite a stream') and pins it to the concrete go2rtc endpoint (PUT /api/streams). The 'or overwrite' phrasing implicitly separates it from update_stream, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance relative to the obvious alternatives (update_stream, delete_stream) despite those siblings existing. The only conditional given is an internal rejection rule for exec:/echo:/expr: sources, which is a constraint rather than routing advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.