Retrieve all configured and active camera streams from a go2rtc server, with credentials redacted. Use it to inspect available streams without exposing sensitive login details.
List all configured and active streams on the go2rtc server with credentials redacted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does contribute one genuinely useful behavioral fact: credentials are redacted in the output. However, it omits whether authentication is required, ordering/pagination behavior, and whether disabled streams are excluded from "configured and active".
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every clause (scope, server, redaction) carries information.
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 not be described, and the tool has no parameters. The description is nearly complete for a simple read-only listing, missing only auth/ordering context.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to document. Schema coverage is 100% and the description correctly implies no filtering arguments are accepted.
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 (List) and resource (all configured and active streams on the go2rtc server), with the scope word "all" implicitly contrasting with the singular get_stream_info sibling. It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly names the sibling that handles the single-stream case.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the bulk-listing counterpart to get_stream_info; the description never says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.