Creates a new filter and attaches it to a specified OBS source so you can apply effects or corrections to that source.
Creates a new filter, adding it to the specified source
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filterKind | Yes | The kind of filter to be created | |
| filterName | Yes | Name of the new filter to be created | |
| sourceName | Yes | Name of the source to add the filter to | |
| filterSettings | No | Settings object to initialize the filter with |
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 full burden. It states the tool creates a filter but lacks critical behavioral details: it does not specify if this requires special permissions, what happens if the filter name already exists, whether the creation is reversible, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 4 parameters, including a nested object) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address error conditions, return values, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it correctly.
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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain what 'filterKind' entails or provide examples for 'filterSettings'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 clearly states the action ('Creates a new filter') and target resource ('adding it to the specified source'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'obs-create-scene' or 'obs-create-input', which follow similar creation patterns but for different resources.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the source must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'obs-remove-source-filter' or 'obs-set-source-filter-settings' for managing filters after creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.