top_gamesGet the top games currently being streamed on Twitch, ranked by number of viewers. Returns game id, name, and box art. Example: top_games({ first: 20 })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| first | No | Number of games to return (default 20, max 100) | |
| _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",
- "first": 20
- },
- {
- "_apiKey": "your-twitch-api-key",
- "first": 50
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "first": 20
+ },
+ {
+ "first": 50
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-twitch-api-key",
+ "first": 20
+ },
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-twitch-api-key",
+ "first": 50
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the result payload (game id, name, box art) and viewer-based ranking, which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about rate limits, caching, or result volatility.
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 core action and scoped by ranking criterion. The inline example is slightly redundant with the schema's own examples list, which is the only waste.
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 read-only, zero-required-param tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, ranking, and return shape. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing, though the absence of an output schema means the brief return-field list is the only return documentation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both `first` (default 20, max 100) and `_apiKey` are fully documented in the schema. The description's example repeats the schema's own examples and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so 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?
States a specific verb (Get), resource (top games on Twitch), and ranking criterion (number of viewers), plus the returned payload. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_streams or search_channels without opening any schema.
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 by the example invocation; there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_streams or other Twitch siblings, and no exclusions. The example gives a starting point but leaves the alternative-selection decision to inference.
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.