Switches OBS to a specified scene collection, with optional confirmation when destructive protection is active. Use it to change the active collection by name.
Switches to a scene collection
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Explicit confirmation required when OBS_PROTECT_DESTRUCTIVE is active | |
| sceneCollectionName | Yes | Name of the scene collection to switch to |
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 full behavioral burden. It says nothing about what switching does to the currently loaded scenes, whether it is disruptive to outputs/streaming, whether the change persists, or the significance of the confirmation requirement surfaced only in the schema.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is terse but not padded, though that terseness leaves no room for useful context.
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 state-changing mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It should disclose side effects on the active scene collection and the role of the confirmation parameter to be complete enough for safe invocation.
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 both parameters (sceneCollectionName, confirm) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Switches to a scene collection'), so an agent can tell it changes the active scene collection. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like obs-get-scene-collection-list or obs-create-scene-collection, but the core action is unambiguous.
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 use this versus listing collections first, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the named collection must exist). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.