Skip to main content
Glama

Crawlora MCP

kick_channel_chatroom

Read-only

Get a Kick channel's chat restrictions and rules: slow mode and its delay, subscribers-only, followers-only with the minimum follow time, emotes-only, minimum account age, whether gifts are enabled, and the chat rules text. Use this to see how strictly a streamer moderates chat; an unknown channel returns not found.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "kick_channel_chatroom"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesChannel slug from kick.com/{slug}, case-insensitive; a kick.com URL is also accepted

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, yet the description adds a genuine behavioral fact not in annotations or schema: an unknown channel returns not found. That failure mode is exactly the kind of thing an agent needs and cannot infer.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The field list is front-loaded in the first sentence and the usage/error notes follow in a compact second sentence. The enumeration is long but each item is substantive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description gives purpose, the data surface, a use case, and the not-found behavior. Nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter is well documented there (case-insensitive, URL accepted). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a Kick channel's chat restrictions and rules') and enumerates the exact data returned, so an agent knows precisely what this yields. It is distinguishable from kick_channel by the moderation focus, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use this to see how strictly a streamer moderates chat' gives one concrete use case, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling (kick_channel, kick_channel_emotes) to prefer for overlapping needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources