Retrieve the current status of the OBS replay buffer output to check whether it is active, starting, stopping, or unavailable before triggering or managing replay saves.
Gets the status of the replay buffer output
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 it 'Gets' status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify what the status includes (e.g., active/inactive, recording state, errors) or any side effects like performance impact. This leaves 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. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple status check. However, it lacks details on what the status entails or how it relates to other replay buffer tools, making it incomplete for full contextual understanding in a complex OBS environment.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could briefly note the lack of inputs for clarity. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.
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 ('status of the replay buffer output'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-last-replay-buffer-replay' or 'obs-get-output-status', which also retrieve replay buffer or output-related information, so it misses full sibling distinction.
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. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used before starting a replay buffer or to monitor its state, nor does it mention related tools like 'obs-start-replay-buffer' or 'obs-stop-replay-buffer' for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.