Read any TriCaster state dictionary by key to inspect switcher, tally, macros, audio, or file browser data; provide the key and get current control state.
Read any TriCaster state dictionary by key. Common keys: switcher, tally, buffer, macros_list, switcher_ui_effects, filebrowser, audiomixer, ddr_timecode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Dictionary key, e.g. 'switcher', 'tally' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Read' but doesn't state read-only status explicitly, nor does it disclose error behavior for invalid keys or the return format. The lack of annotations means more disclosure would be beneficial.
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?
Two concise sentences: the core action is stated first, followed by a useful list of example keys. No wasted words.
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 simple 1-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics. But without annotations, it should specify that the operation is read-only (no side effects) and perhaps mention the structure of the returned dictionary. The example keys compensate somewhat.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single 'key' parameter. The description adds a list of example keys, which is helpful context but largely repeats the schema's example. Baseline 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?
States a clear verb (Read) and resource (TriCaster state dictionary by key), distinguishing it from siblings like get_switcher_state or get_tally. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those narrower getters, leaving some ambiguity about when this generic dictionary read is preferred.
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?
The listing of common keys implies usage context, suggesting this tool can fetch a variety of states. But there's no explicit guidance on when to use this generic tool versus the many specific get_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.