Executes a vendor-registered request by specifying the vendor name, request type, and request data for vendor-specific OBS actions.
Call a request registered to a vendor
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vendorName | Yes | Name of the vendor to use | |
| requestData | No | Object containing appropriate request data | |
| requestType | Yes | The request type to call |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Call a request' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what side effects occur (e.g., changes in OBS state), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential side effects.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it is front-loaded but overly terse, lacking necessary context that could justify additional sentences for clarity. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses points for under-specification.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this tool is incomplete for effective use. The agent lacks information on behavior, return values, and how it fits among many sibling tools. For a 3-parameter tool with potential side effects, the description should provide more context on purpose and usage.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters ('vendorName', 'requestType', 'requestData'). The description does not add meaning beyond this, such as examples of vendor names or request types, or how 'requestData' should be structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Call a request registered to a vendor' states a verb ('Call') and resource ('request registered to a vendor'), but is vague about what 'call' means in this context (e.g., execute, invoke, trigger) and what a 'vendor request' entails. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'obs-broadcast-custom-event' or 'obs-trigger-media-input-action', which might involve similar triggering actions.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for triggering actions (e.g., 'obs-trigger-hotkey-by-name', 'obs-trigger-media-input-action'), the description lacks context on its specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.