List all PTZ preset positions for a specified camera channel on an Axis device.
List all PTZ preset positions.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_ptz_presets"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| camera | No | Camera/channel number (default 1) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already cover safety and idempotency. The description adds 'List all PTZ preset positions' which is consistent but adds no further behavioral detail (e.g., return format, nesting, or performance implications). With annotations present, this is adequate.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler words.
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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the returned list contains (e.g., preset IDs, names, or coordinates). For a list operation, this leaves a significant gap. A more complete description would specify the data structure of the presets.
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 100% for the single parameter 'camera', which already includes a description and default. The tool description does not mention the parameter or add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'List all PTZ preset positions' uses a specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource 'PTZ preset positions'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'goto_ptz_preset' (which goes to a preset) and 'get_ptz_position' (which gets current position).
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'goto_ptz_preset' or 'get_ptz_position'. It does not specify prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.