spot-ai-mcp

get_live_stream_urls

Read-only

Generate live-stream viewing URLs for up to four cameras so authenticated users can watch selected camera feeds without changing any data.

Instructions

Get a URL to a live stream of up to 4 cameras. Generates a viewing URL for the authenticated caller; modifies nothing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "camera_ids": "<camera_ids>"
    },
    "name": "get_live_stream_urls"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`camera_ids`	Yes	Ids of the cameras to create live urls for (1 to 4)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so 'modifies nothing' is largely reinforcement, though it does confirm the annotation explicitly. 'For the authenticated caller' adds genuine auth-scoping context that the annotation does not cover. However, nothing is said about URL lifetime/expiry or whether the stream is continuous, which matters for a stream-URL tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the read-only guarantee placed immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The only notable gap is the absence of any note on URL validity or output shape, which would help an agent that must act on the returned URL.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 1-to-4 constraint. The description's 'up to 4 cameras' only restates the maxItems bound, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a URL to a live stream of up to 4 cameras'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_camera, list_cameras, or get_camera_count that return metadata rather than stream URLs. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for the authenticated caller' implies the calling context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this is preferable to get_camera, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. Usage must be inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server