ably_get_channel_detailsGet status and occupancy metrics for a single channel (connections, publishers, subscribers, presence members). REST: GET /channels/{channel}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | Channel name. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'GET' is consistent with that. It adds useful context by listing the metrics returned (connections, publishers, subscribers, presence members), though it does not describe response format, pagination, or authentication requirements.
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 compact and efficiently front-loads the purpose and key returned metrics. The REST endpoint is included without unnecessary elaboration, and 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 one-parameter read-only tool with a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly complete: it states the endpoint, the scope, and the substance of the response. The only notable gap is the lack of an output schema or explicit return format, but the listed metrics partially compensate.
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% for the single 'channel' parameter, so the schema already documents it adequately. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status and occupancy metrics for a single channel'), and the REST path adds precision. It distinguishes from multi-channel tools like list_channels, but does not explicitly differentiate from the overlapping sibling ably_get_presence, which also deals with presence.
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 phrase 'for a single channel' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over ably_get_presence or ably_get_channel_history. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so usage context is only implied.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: account-level stats, app-level stats, channel details, history, presence, presence history, service time, and each control-plane listing (apps, keys, namespaces, queues, rules) are clearly separated. The only potentially confusing pair is account stats vs app stats, but their descriptions explicitly differentiate account-wide vs API-key-scoped usage.
All tools use a uniform 'ably_' prefix followed by a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_ for single resources, list_ for collections, publish_message for the write action, and whoami for token details. There are no mixed casing styles or inconsistent verb choices.
Fifteen tools is within the ideal range and each one covers a meaningful Ably capability, from control-plane inspection to channel data retrieval and publishing. The count feels justified given the breadth of Ably's API surface, with no redundant or filler tools.
The read side is well covered: stats, channel details, history, presence, and control-plane listings all have dedicated tools, and message publishing provides one write path. However, there are no create/update/delete operations for apps, keys, namespaces, queues, or rules, so lifecycle management is largely absent and an agent could not perform common administrative workflows.