Sets the cursor position of a media input in OBS Studio by input name and cursor time in milliseconds.
Sets the cursor position of a media input
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputName | Yes | Name of the media input | |
| mediaCursor | Yes | New cursor position to set (in milliseconds) |
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'set' action, implying mutation, but doesn't mention side effects like whether it affects playback, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or what happens after setting the cursor (e.g., does playback resume?). Given the complexity of media control, 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('inputName' and 'mediaCursor') with their types and constraints. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, meeting the baseline for high schema 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 ('Sets') and the target ('cursor position of a media input'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-offset-media-input-cursor' or 'obs-get-media-input-status', which handle related media input operations.
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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the media input must be active or paused, or how it differs from offsetting the cursor. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.