Show who founded a channel, its operators and whether it is private.
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": {
"channel": "<channel>"
},
"name": "channel_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | Channel, e.g. #general (the default). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned information (founder, operators, privacy) and the word 'Show' implies a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about permissions, whether a private channel the caller cannot see errors or returns partial data, or what happens for an unknown channel.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the returned fields are front-loaded. It is slightly dense as a three-item enumeration, but every clause 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential 'what you get back'. It leaves gaps around privacy-related failure modes and missing-channel behavior, which matter given that private status is one of the reported attributes.
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?
There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself supplying an example format ('#general') and the default. The description adds no channel-name syntax or resolution rules beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource (a channel), and enumerates exactly what is returned: founder, operators, and private status. That makes it distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like register_channel or join without opening any schema, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with a sibling such as list_channels.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-only inspection tool for a channel's metadata. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative for listing or searching channels.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.