Set or delete a parameter in the current OBS profile configuration by providing its category, name, and value (null deletes).
Sets the value of a parameter in the current profile's configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parameterName | Yes | Name of the parameter to set | |
| parameterValue | Yes | Value of the parameter to set. Use null to delete | |
| parameterCategory | Yes | Category of the parameter to set |
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 'Sets the value' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are persistent, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a configuration mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 function without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral context (e.g., what 'current profile' means, how changes affect the system), error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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 all three parameters (parameterCategory, parameterName, parameterValue) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, 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 target ('value of a parameter in the current profile's configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'obs-set-current-profile' or 'obs-set-persistent-data', which also modify configuration elements, so it misses full 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. With many sibling tools that modify settings (e.g., 'obs-set-input-settings', 'obs-set-output-settings'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.