Retrieves the default settings for a specified input kind in OBS Studio, so you can inspect configuration values before creating or modifying an input.
Gets the default settings for an input kind
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputKind | Yes | Input kind to get the default settings for |
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Gets') but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the return format might be, or any error conditions. 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 with no wasted words, making it highly concise and easy to parse. It front-loads the key information without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal 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. It doesn't explain what 'default settings' entail, the format of the return value, or how this tool fits into broader workflows with siblings. For a tool in a complex OBS ecosystem, more context is needed to ensure proper 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'inputKind' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter 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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('default settings for an input kind'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-input-settings' or 'obs-get-input-kind-list', which reduces clarity in distinguishing exact use cases.
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 such as 'obs-get-input-settings' or 'obs-get-input-kind-list'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.