Assign a value to a TriCaster DataLink key to update scores, labels, or text fields during live production.
Set a DataLink key to a value (e.g. update a score or text field).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | DataLink key name | |
| value | Yes | Value to set |
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 behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not say whether the value overwrites existing data, whether the write persists across sessions, whether permissions are required, or what the tool returns on success/failure.
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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and the clarifying example parenthesized at the end. Nothing is wasted, though there is little structure to speak of beyond that one line.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate to invoke it, but a mutation operation with zero annotations and no output schema leaves the agent uninformed about overwrite semantics, persistence, and the relationship to get_datalink.
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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a light hint about the kinds of values ('score or text field') and no syntax, format, or key-naming convention beyond the schema.
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+resource ('Set a DataLink key to a value') and gives a concrete example of the domain ('update a score or text field'). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_datalink, though it never names it, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_datalink for reading the same key. The example hints at typical use cases but does not state conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.