Creates a new OBS scene collection and switches to it immediately, providing a fresh workspace to organize scenes and sources.
Creates a new scene collection, switching to it in the process
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sceneCollectionName | Yes | Name for the new scene collection |
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool creates and switches to a new scene collection, implying a mutation operation, but it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on current scenes), error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 that front-loads the key action ('Creates a new scene collection') and adds a useful behavioral note ('switching to it in the process'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't cover important aspects like what happens on failure, whether the switch is immediate, or what the return value might be. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'sceneCollectionName' clearly documented as 'Name for the new scene collection'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as naming constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
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 clearly states the action ('creates a new scene collection') and specifies the resource ('scene collection'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-create-scene' or 'obs-create-profile', which also create resources but of different types, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
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 mentions that it switches to the new scene collection, which provides some context for usage, but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obs-set-current-scene-collection' or other creation tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, limiting its helpfulness in decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.