Sets the index position of a scene item in an OBS scene to control source stacking order; index 0 places it at the bottom.
Sets the index position of a scene item in a scene (0 is bottom of the source list)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sceneName | No | Name of the scene the item is in | |
| sceneUuid | No | UUID of the scene the item is in | |
| sceneItemId | Yes | Numeric ID of the scene item | |
| sceneItemIndex | Yes | New index position of the scene item (>= 0) |
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 burden. It usefully discloses the ordering convention (0 = bottom of the source list), which goes beyond the schema's bare '>= 0'. However, it omits failure behavior for out-of-range indices, whether the item is moved or renumbered, and any permission/connection requirements.
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 front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that earns its place by disambiguating the index direction. No filler or redundancy.
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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the core intent but leaves gaps: it does not explain how sceneName and sceneUuid relate (both optional per schema), what an out-of-range index does, or whether indexes shift for other items.
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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description adds only the interpretation of sceneItemIndex as a stack position with 0 at the bottom; it says nothing about the sceneName vs sceneUuid relationship or whether either is optional when sceneItemId is known.
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 ('Sets the index position of a scene item in a scene') and clarifies the ordering semantics. It is distinguishable from obs-get-scene-item-index and obs-set-scene-item-transform by naming the mutated property, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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?
Usage is only implied: the parenthetical about index 0 being the bottom of the source list hints that this is for reordering sources within a scene. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus obs-get-scene-item-index or obs-duplicate-scene-item, and no preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.