Triggers a hotkey using its name
Triggers a hotkey using its name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hotkeyName | Yes | Name of the hotkey to trigger | |
| contextName | No | Name of context of the hotkey to trigger |
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 the tool triggers a hotkey, implying a write/mutation action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if it changes OBS state), error handling, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs an action in OBS.
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. It's front-loaded with the core action, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as hinting at the outcome.
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 tool that likely performs an action in OBS), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'triggers' means in practice, potential impacts, or what to expect upon success/failure. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'hotkeyName' (required) and 'contextName' (optional). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Triggers a hotkey using its name' clearly states the action (triggers) and resource (hotkey), but it's somewhat vague about what 'triggers' entails—does it simulate a key press, activate a function, or something else? It distinguishes from sibling 'obs-trigger-hotkey-by-key-sequence' by specifying 'by name' vs 'by key sequence', but the purpose could be more specific about the effect.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for hotkeys identified by name, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., hotkey must exist), exclusions, or compare to other triggering methods like 'obs-trigger-hotkey-by-key-sequence'. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.