Send custom shortcut commands to a TriCaster for advanced control beyond built-in tools.
Send any raw shortcut command to the TriCaster. Use this for advanced/custom control not covered by other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Shortcut name, e.g. 'main_background_auto' | |
| value | No | Optional value for the shortcut |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It says it sends a raw command but does not state what happens on execution, whether it requires authentication, whether changes are reversible, what errors may occur, or any rate limits—critical gaps for a low-level control 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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence immediately clarifies the use case and differentiator from other tools.
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 tool that executes arbitrary raw commands, the description gives enough to select it but not enough to invoke it safely or effectively. It lacks guidance on where to find valid shortcut names, how the optional value is interpreted, or what the tool returns, and with no annotations or output schema, those gaps are significant.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (name and optional value). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter syntax, allowed values, or format beyond what the schema provides, so 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 states a specific verb (send) and resource (raw shortcut command to TriCaster), and distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as advanced/custom control not covered by other tools. An agent can tell it apart from specific tools like set_audio_volume or dsk_on without opening the schema.
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?
It explicitly says to use this for advanced/custom control not covered by other tools, which is a clear when-to-use condition and an implicit when-not (for covered controls). It does not name any specific alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.