Trigger play, pause, stop, restart, next, or previous actions on a named OBS media input to control playback.
Triggers an action on a media input
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputName | Yes | Name of the media input | |
| mediaAction | Yes | Action to trigger (PLAY, PAUSE, STOP, RESTART, NEXT, PREVIOUS) |
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 an action,' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether actions are reversible, error conditions, or effects on OBS state. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero 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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks depth, earning a 4 for brevity without being overly sparse.
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 (a mutation with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to invoke it correctly in a real-world OBS scenario.
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: 'inputName' and 'mediaAction' (including an enum list). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline is 3 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 'Triggers an action on a media input' states a general purpose with a verb ('triggers') and resource ('media input'), but it's vague about what specific actions are available or what 'media input' entails. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'obs-set-media-input-cursor' or 'obs-get-media-input-status', which also involve media inputs but with different operations.
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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing media input, or contrast with tools like 'obs-set-media-input-cursor' for cursor control or 'obs-get-media-input-status' for status checks. The description lacks context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.