Retrieve a specific parameter value from the current OBS profile configuration by specifying its category and name. Use it to inspect profile settings during OBS monitoring or automation.
Gets a parameter from the current profile's configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parameterName | Yes | Name of the parameter to get | |
| parameterCategory | Yes | Category of the parameter to get |
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 this is a read operation ('Gets'), but doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the parameter doesn't exist. For a configuration retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the essential information.
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 simple read operation with 2 documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations covering safety/behavior and no output schema to describe return values, the description should ideally provide more context about what values are returned and any constraints on parameter retrieval.
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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (category and name of parameter). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 target ('a parameter from the current profile's configuration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'get' tools like 'obs-get-persistent-data' or 'obs-get-input-settings', which also retrieve configuration values from different contexts.
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 a current profile), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'obs-set-profile-parameter' for writing parameters or 'obs-get-profile-list' for listing profiles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.