Return one live stream. Does not include stream_key.
`ingest` has the RTMP and RTMPS server URLs (no key) and, after start,
the encoder `host`. SRT and WebRTC ingest URLs are never included.
A missing or foreign stream is `code: stream_not_found`.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stream_id | Yes | Live stream id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is the extras, and it delivers: it discloses that stream_key is omitted, that ingest carries only RTMP/RTMPS URLs plus encoder host after start, that SRT/WebRTC URLs are never present, and that missing or foreign ids return stream_not_found. This is meaningful disclosure beyond the 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 core purpose and the stream_key exclusion are front-loaded, followed by field-level detail and the error case. Every sentence carries information, though the ingest enumeration is slightly dense for a tool whose output schema already defines those fields.
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 an output schema present, return shape needn't be described, and the description instead covers the non-obvious gaps: the deliberately omitted stream_key, which ingest URL types can appear, and the exact error code for missing/foreign streams. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 there is a single required stream_id, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description only marginally enriches it by revealing that a foreign (non-owned) id yields stream_not_found, which implies a workspace-scoping constraint on the id. 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?
"Return one live stream" gives a specific verb and resource, and implicitly contrasts with list_live_streams and with get_live_stream_key via the "does not include stream_key" carve-out. It stops short of naming those siblings outright, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 note that stream_key is excluded hints that get_live_stream_key is the tool to use when the key is needed, but that alternative is never named and there is no explicit "use this when..." routing versus get_live_stream_health or list_live_streams. Usage is implied, not guided.
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.