Adds a source to a specified OBS scene as a scene item, optionally setting its visibility. Use it to place existing sources into scenes for composition and control.
Create a scene item for a source in a scene
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | No | Whether the scene item is enabled/visible (default: true) | |
| sceneName | Yes | The scene to add the source to | |
| sourceName | Yes | The name of the source to add |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' implying a write operation, but doesn't address permissions, side effects (e.g., whether this affects live streaming), error conditions, or what happens if the scene/source doesn't exist. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a mutation tool.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'scene item' is in OBS context, what the creation entails (e.g., positioning, default settings), or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of OBS operations and lack of structured behavioral hints, more context is needed for 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (sceneName, sourceName, enabled). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
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 ('Create a scene item') and target ('for a source in a scene'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-create-scene' or 'obs-create-input', which create different OBS entities, leaving some room for confusion about scope.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing scenes/sources), exclusions, or related tools like 'obs-remove-scene-item' or 'obs-set-scene-item-enabled', leaving the agent to infer usage context 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.