Read or set the OBSBOT Tail 2 gimbal's control-direction inversion. Call without arguments to read; pass an enable boolean to write and verify via readback.
Read or set the Tail 2's control-direction inversion (gimbalinvert). Call with no arguments to read; pass enable to write (verified by readback).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| camera | No | ||
| enable | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that writes are verified by readback, but says nothing about persistence of the setting, permission/auth needs, or how the value is returned, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a mutation-capable tool.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the operation and then the read/write branch; no filler whatsoever.
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?
For a two-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the read/write mode logic and readback confirmation well; the only notable omission is the camera selector's meaning.
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 coverage is 0% and there are 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of enable (pass it to write) but says nothing about the camera parameter, leaving half the inputs undocumented in both schema and prose.
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?
States a specific verb pair (read/set) and the exact resource (Tail 2 control-direction inversion, gimbalinvert), which is clearly distinct from siblings like gimbal_roll_bias or gimbal_speed.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent how to select each mode: no arguments to read, pass enable to write. That covers the when-to-use decision for a dual-mode tool, though it names no alternative tool or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.