get_channelGet one channel by id. Includes scheduleStatus (inactive | pending | active | error) — poll this to confirm a channel has gone live — plus watchUrl, launchedAt and isArchived.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel_id | Yes | Channel id |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by listing specific return fields (scheduleStatus, watchUrl, launchedAt, isArchived) and indicating that the status can change, making it suitable for polling. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is concise and well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and adds valuable detail in the second. No redundant information or filler. 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 single-channel getter with one parameter, the description is quite complete. It explains the primary use case, key return fields, and a monitoring pattern via polling. Annotations cover safety, and there's no output schema requiring explanation. It does not mention error behavior for missing channels, but that's a minor gap for this simple tool.
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 input schema has a single parameter 'channel_id' with a description 'Channel id', and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional meaning for this parameter. Since the schema already fully explains the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get one channel by id.' This uses a specific verb (Get), identifies the resource (channel), and specifies the scope (by id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_channels by focusing on a single channel retrieval.
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?
The description provides a clear use context: 'poll this to confirm a channel has gone live.' This indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The polling guidance is a strong usage hint, but it doesn't say 'use list_channels for multiple channels' or similar.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct: channel lifecycle (create/get/update/archive/list), asset management (import/delete/list/set_asset_weight), schedule management (get/set/validate/regenerate), and transcode (get status/retry). Minor overlap exists between archive_channel and delete_asset, but descriptions clarify the scope (whole channel vs single video). import_video_from_url and import_youtube_video are distinct in source and ownership requirements.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: archive_channel, create_channel, delete_asset, get_channel, list_assets, set_asset_weight, validate_schedule_rules, etc. Verbs are action-oriented (create, get, list, update, archive, delete, import, set, regenerate, retry) and nouns are resource names (channel, asset, schedule, transcode). No mixed conventions or vague verbs like 'process' or 'do_thing'.
19 tools is well-scoped for a TV channel management server covering channel lifecycle, asset ingestion, scheduling, and transcode monitoring. Each tool addresses a distinct need and the count feels proportional to the complexity of managing a 24/7 linear TV channel. Not bloated with redundant tools, and each has a clear purpose.
The surface covers the core domain comprehensively: channel CRUD (create, get, update, archive, list), asset management (import, delete, list, weight), scheduling (set rules, validate, regenerate, get schedule), and transcode monitoring (status, retry). Minor gaps: no direct way to upload local files (stated as a limitation), no channel deletion (only archive), and no ability to manage playlists explicitly. However, these are acknowledged design constraints or edge cases, so the surface is largely complete for the stated purpose.