Configures the current OBS stream service by applying a specified service type and settings object, enabling updates or switches to stream destinations.
Sets the current stream service settings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| streamServiceType | Yes | Type of stream service to apply. Example: rtmp_common or rtmp_custom | |
| streamServiceSettings | Yes | Settings to apply to the service |
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 states 'Sets the current stream service settings', implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on active streams), error conditions, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a write tool with no 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'stream service settings' are, potential impacts, or return values, leaving critical behavioral and contextual gaps for 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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'streamServiceType' and 'streamServiceSettings'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of settings or service types. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 current stream service settings' clearly states the action (sets) and target (stream service settings), but it's vague about what 'stream service settings' entail and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'obs-set-output-settings' or 'obs-get-stream-service-settings'. It's a basic verb+resource statement without specificity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., before streaming), or sibling tools like 'obs-get-stream-service-settings' for retrieval. Usage is implied from the action 'sets', but no explicit context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.