Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ecamm-mcp

ecamm-mcp

by guycochran
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ecamm_play_video

Play a specified video file in Ecamm Live by providing its full path; use ecamm_list videos to find available files.

Instructions

Play a video file (full path, see ecamm_list videos).

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "ecamm_play_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates playback state without being destructive. The description adds the prerequisite that a full path from ecamm_list is needed, but discloses nothing about playback effects — whether it replaces the active source, blocks until completion, or fails when a video is already playing.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parameter hint is placed inline where it is needed. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so the deficit shows up under completeness rather than conciseness.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema this is close to sufficient, but a state-changing play action should say what it plays into and what it displaces. The annotations cover the safety profile, leaving playback semantics as the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does partially by specifying 'full path' (not a filename or ID) and pointing to ecamm_list for valid values, but it says nothing about path format, supported extensions, or error behavior on an invalid path.

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 ('Play a video file'), which is distinguishable from the sibling set of scene, camera, overlay, and volume controls. It does not explicitly say what the video plays into (source, overlay, or scene), so the resource boundary is slightly soft.

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?

The parenthetical 'see ecamm_list videos' gives a concrete prerequisite for obtaining the path, which is genuine routing guidance. It stops short of stating when to use this versus overlay/scene tools, or what happens to currently playing content.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools