Opens a projector for a selected OBS video mix—preview, program, or multiview—so you can display it on a monitor or in a window.
Opens a projector for a specific output video mix
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| monitorIndex | No | Monitor index, use -1 for windowed mode | |
| videoMixType | Yes | Type of mix to open | |
| projectorGeometry | No | Size/Position data for a windowed projector |
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool opens a projector but doesn't explain what that entails (e.g., whether it creates a new window, requires specific permissions, affects system resources, or has side effects). For a tool with potential visual or system impact, this lack of detail is a significant gap.
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 front-loaded and wastes no space, 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 likely involves system-level actions (opening projectors), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, or error conditions, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a 'video mix' context, which is already covered by the schema's enum and descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 a projector') and the target ('for a specific output video mix'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-open-source-projector' or 'obs-open-input-properties', which also open projectors but for different resources, so it lacks explicit 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other projector-opening tools in the sibling list. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.