Retrieve the lock state of a scene item in OBS Studio to verify whether it is locked before editing or automating scene layout changes.
Gets the lock state of a scene item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sceneName | No | Name of the scene the item is in | |
| sceneUuid | No | UUID of the scene the item is in | |
| sceneItemId | Yes | Numeric ID of the scene item |
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 entire behavioral burden. It implies a read-only, non-destructive lookup, but says nothing about error behavior for an invalid or missing sceneItemId, whether a scene must be pinned first, or what the returned lock state looks like.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves no room for the context this minimally-annotated getter would benefit from.
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 three-parameter getter this is close to adequate, and the schema documents every parameter. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least clarify scene resolution (sceneName vs sceneUuid vs neither) and the shape of the returned lock state.
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 all three parameters are already documented in the input schema and the description adds no extra meaning. The baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not resolve the notable ambiguity that only sceneItemId is required while sceneName and sceneUuid are optional.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Gets the lock state of a scene item"), which is enough to distinguish it from write siblings like obs-set-scene-item-locked and from adjacent getters like obs-get-scene-item-enabled. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus obs-get-scene-item-enabled, obs-get-scene-item-transform, or obs-set-scene-item-locked. The use case is only inferable from the tool name and the word "Gets", with no prerequisites or exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.