Renames an OBS source filter by providing the source name, current filter name, and new name. Use it to update filter labels while preserving filter settings.
Sets the name of a source filter (rename)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filterName | Yes | Current name of the filter | |
| sourceName | Yes | Name of the source the filter is on | |
| newFilterName | Yes | New name for the filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation ('Sets'), suggesting it modifies state, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, error conditions (e.g., if the filter doesn't exist), or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool without annotation support.
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 extremely concise—a single phrase that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it efficient for quick understanding.
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 insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, idempotency), expected outcomes, or integration with sibling tools. Given the complexity of OBS operations, 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 all three parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying renaming, which is already clear from parameter names. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
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 the name') and resource ('source filter'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-create-source-filter' (creation) and 'obs-remove-source-filter' (deletion) by focusing on renaming. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'obs-set-input-name' (which renames inputs, not filters), leaving some ambiguity.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the filter must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'obs-get-source-filter-list' for verification. The description alone offers no usage context beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.