Retrieve the three gimbal preset slots on an OBSBOT Tiny 2, including occupied status, preset name, and pose in degrees.
Read the three gimbal preset slots (occupied/empty, name, pose in degrees). Reads flat XU selectors 12 (list) and 13 (entry cursor), NOT the vendor V3 framed-reply path (which is non-functional for preset data on this device).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| camera | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it reads from specific XU selectors (12 and 13) and explicitly states that the vendor V3 path is non-functional. This is helpful behavioral context beyond just 'read presets'.
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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence adds valuable technical context without being overly verbose. Slight reduction in conciseness due to technical jargon, but still efficient.
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?
The description gives partial output details (occupied/empty, name, pose) but no information on data structure, defaults, error states, or behavior when no presets exist. Missing output schema increases the need for such details, which are absent.
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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'camera' parameter. The agent has no guidance on what value to provide or if it's required, leaving the parameter's semantics entirely opaque.
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 'Read' and the resource 'three gimbal preset slots', specifying exactly what data is returned (occupied/empty, name, pose in degrees). This distinguishes it from sibling preset tools that modify or recall presets.
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 like obsbot_preset_recall or obsbot_preset_save. The description only explains internal implementation details, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.