go2rtc-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_stream

Update an existing go2rtc stream by changing its source URL via PATCH /api/streams, while blocking exec, echo, and expr sources unless explicitly enabled.

Instructions

Dynamically update an existing stream on go2rtc (PATCH /api/streams).

Rejects exec:, echo:, and expr: sources unless GO2RTC_ALLOW_EXEC_STREAMS=true.

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": {
      "stream_name": "<stream_name>",
      "source_url": "<source_url>"
    },
    "name": "update_stream"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source_url`	Yes
`stream_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It does add one real behavioral fact: exec:/echo:/expr: sources are rejected unless GO2RTC_ALLOW_EXEC_STREAMS=true. However, it omits any mention of auth/permissions and does not clarify whether the update replaces the stream's full source set or merges into it.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, constraint second. No filler and nothing wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 described. Still, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description leaves gaps: no auth requirements, no statement of whether unspecified fields are cleared, and only partial coverage of what source_url accepts.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema alone explains nothing about the two params. The description partially compensates by constraining valid source_url values (no exec:/echo:/expr:), but stream_name and the replace-vs-merge semantics of source_url remain unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('update an existing stream') plus the underlying endpoint (PATCH /api/streams), which lets an agent distinguish it from add_stream and delete_stream. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling boundary (e.g., 'use add_stream to create'), so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'an existing stream' implies a precondition (the stream must already exist), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to add_stream/delete_stream. The usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server