Retrieve all available OBS input kinds, optionally without version suffixes, to identify supported sources for scene and audio configuration.
Gets an array of all available input kinds in OBS
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unversioned | No | True to return all kinds as unversioned, False to return with version suffixes |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Gets an array,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires permissions, has side effects, or details the return format (e.g., structure of the array). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
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 is front-loaded and wastes no space, 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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output specifics, which could be important for an AI agent to use it correctly in a broader OBS ecosystem.
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 input schema fully documents the single parameter 'unversioned' with its boolean type and description. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 ('Gets') and resource ('array of all available input kinds in OBS'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-input-list' or 'obs-get-filter-kind-list', which could cause confusion about what distinguishes 'input kinds' from other list types.
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, such as 'obs-get-input-list' for inputs themselves or 'obs-get-filter-kind-list' for filter kinds. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.