get_userLook up a Twitch user/channel by login (username). Returns profile info: id, display name, description, view count, broadcaster type, account creation date, and profile image. Example: get_user({ login: "ninja" })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| login | Yes | Twitch username (login), e.g. "ninja", "pokimane". | |
| _apiKey | No | Optional — your own Twitch credentials as CLIENT_ID:CLIENT_SECRET for higher limits; omit to use the shared Pipeworx key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "_apiKey": "your-twitch-api-key",
- "login": "ninja"
- },
- {
- "_apiKey": "your-twitch-api-key",
- "login": "pokimane"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "login": "ninja"
+ },
+ {
+ "login": "pokimane"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-twitch-api-key",
+ "login": "ninja"
+ },
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-twitch-api-key",
+ "login": "pokimane"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return-field list, which is genuinely useful with no output schema. It says nothing about behavior for unknown logins (error vs empty), rate limits, or the credential override documented in the schema.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return values and a call example. The example slightly duplicates the schema's examples array, but it is cheap and clarifies invocation syntax.
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, listing the returned fields (id, display name, description, view count, broadcaster type, creation date, profile image) is exactly the missing context an agent needs. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing material is absent.
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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the optional _apiKey for higher rate limits. The description's "by login (username)" and inline example merely restate the schema's own example, adding no new semantics. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Look up a Twitch user/channel by login") and enumerates the returned profile fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_channels, which an agent could reasonably confuse with a name-based lookup.
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: the phrase "by login (username)" suggests an exact-match lookup rather than a fuzzy search, and the example reinforces that. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of search_channels, nor what happens when the login does not exist.
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.