get_outputsInspect OBS streaming, recording, replay buffer, and virtual camera status plus recording folder, output list, and stream service details.
Stream, recording, replay buffer and virtual camera status, the recording folder, every OBS output, and the stream service (server shown, key redacted).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the stream key is redacted, so the agent knows credentials will not be exposed, and it discloses that a recording folder path is included in the response.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary resources (stream, recording) before the more peripheral ones. Every clause names a distinct returned field, so nothing is wasted, though it is a verbless fragment.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so by listing every major status group plus the service details. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor ambiguity about response shape and overlap with get_overview.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.
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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns — stream, recording, replay buffer, virtual camera status, recording folder, all OBS outputs, and stream service details. It is a specific resource enumeration rather than a tautology, though the verb is only implied and it does not distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling get_overview.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as get_overview, which likely reports similar stream/recording state. The agent must infer usage purely from the content list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.