Cuts the TriCaster Program output directly to a chosen source, bypassing transitions. Use list_sources first to find valid inputs like input1, ddr1, gfx1, or black.
Cut directly to a new Program source (no transition). Use list_sources to see valid source names. Common sources: input1–inputN, ddr1, ddr2, gfx1, gfx2, bfr1–bfrN, black.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Source name, e.g. 'input1', 'ddr1', 'gfx1', 'black' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the switch is immediate and skips transitions, and points to a discovery tool. However, it omits permissions, reversibility, error behavior, and whether preview is affected, leaving notable gaps for a live production control.
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?
Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The follow-up sentences add source discovery and examples without waste. Every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter control tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough to call it correctly: what it does, how to discover valid sources, and common values. No essential information is missing.
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% and provides examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by directing agents to list_sources and expanding the example enumeration (inputN, ddr2, gfx2, bfr1–bfrN), which helps agents construct valid values.
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 and resource: 'Cut directly to a new Program source.' The parenthetical '(no transition)' distinguishes it from sibling transition tools like auto_transition and cut_transition. An agent can identify the action 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?
Provides clear context: use list_sources for valid names, and common sources are listed. The 'no transition' phrasing implies when this tool is appropriate versus transition-based siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.