Triggers an OBS Studio hotkey by specifying a key ID and optional Alt, Shift, Ctrl, or Cmd modifiers, enabling automated control of OBS actions.
Triggers a hotkey using a sequence of keys
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyId | No | The OBS key ID to use | |
| keyModifiers | No | Object containing key modifiers to apply |
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 the action ('Triggers') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires OBS to be in a specific state, if it's synchronous/asynchronous, potential side effects (e.g., UI changes), error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without 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?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral transparency, usage guidelines, and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations. While concise, it fails to provide enough context for safe and effective use in an OBS environment.
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 both parameters ('keyId' and 'keyModifiers') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool uses a sequence of keys, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context like examples or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the verb ('Triggers') and resource ('a hotkey'), specifying it uses 'a sequence of keys'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'obs-trigger-hotkey-by-name', which uses a name instead of a key sequence. However, it doesn't explicitly mention OBS (Open Broadcaster Software) context, though the tool name prefix implies it.
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., OBS must be running), compare it to 'obs-trigger-hotkey-by-name', or specify scenarios where key sequences are preferred over names. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.