Opens the filters dialog for a specified OBS input by name or UUID, enabling direct access to its audio/video filter settings.
Opens the filters dialog of an input
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputName | No | Name of the input to open the dialog of | |
| inputUuid | No | UUID of the input to open the dialog of |
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 full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's a read-only or mutating operation, what the dialog does (e.g., modal vs. non-modal), or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with user interfaces.
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 zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that opens a dialog (implying potential user interaction or side effects), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the filters dialog is, how it behaves, or what the expected outcome is, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its use.
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 schema already documents both parameters ('inputName' and 'inputUuid') with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning, syntax, or format details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 ('Opens') and the target ('filters dialog of an input'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-open-input-properties' or 'obs-open-input-interact', which also open dialogs for inputs but for different purposes.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for opening filters, or what happens after the dialog opens. It lacks any comparison to similar tools like 'obs-open-input-properties'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.