Configure settings for a named OBS input, choosing whether to apply changes over existing values or reset to defaults first.
Sets the settings of an input
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overlay | No | True to apply settings on top of existing ones, False to reset to defaults first | |
| inputName | Yes | Name of the input to set the settings of | |
| inputSettings | Yes | Object of settings to apply |
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 full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks context about what 'sets' entails operationally.
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, though it could be more informative. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification.
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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after settings are applied, potential return values, or error handling. Given the complexity implied by inputSettings being an object, more context is needed for effective 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 fully documents parameters (inputName, inputSettings, overlay). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of inputSettings or clarification on overlay behavior. 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 'Sets the settings of an input' states the basic action (sets) and target (settings of an input), but it's vague about what 'settings' entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like obs-set-input-audio-balance or obs-set-input-volume. It lacks specificity about what types of settings can be configured.
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 (e.g., input must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like obs-get-input-settings for retrieval or other obs-set-input-* tools for specific settings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.