Confere o código, abre sessão e reivindica o convidado (devolve o convidado principal).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Os 6 dígitos que chegaram por e-mail. | |
| Yes | O mesmo e-mail do `/api/auth/start`. | ||
| guest_token | No | Convidado deste aparelho, para ser reivindicado pela conta. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / code / descriptionAdded value: +"Os 6 dígitos que chegaram por e-mail."Input schema / properties / email / descriptionAdded value: +"O mesmo e-mail do `/api/auth/start`."Input schema / properties / guest_token / descriptionAdded value: +"Convidado deste aparelho, para ser reivindicado pela conta."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does state that it opens a session, claims the guest, and returns the guest, which are key actions. However, it does not disclose side effects like session invalidation, whether the operation is idempotent, or any permission requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Confere o código') and then lists secondary actions. It is efficient with no filler, though it could benefit from a more structured format to separate actions clearly.
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?
The tool has a multi-step operation (confirm, open session, claim guest) and no output schema, so the description must explain the flow and return value. It mentions the return ('devolve o convidado principal') but does not explain when guest_token is needed, what the session entails, or what constitutes success. The lack of output schema and complexity makes this incomplete.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the relationship between guest_token and the return value. Since schema coverage is complete, a 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 clearly states three specific actions: confirming the code, opening a session, and claiming the guest, plus returns the main guest. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from auth_start by the guest claim step. However, it is concise and could be more explicit about the tool's role in the auth flow.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema mentions email from /api/auth/start, implying a sequencing prerequisite, but the description itself does not state any conditions, exclusions, or recommended context. This leaves the agent to infer usage.
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.
Each tool addresses a distinct resource/action: favorites vs. history vs. watch recording are clearly separate, and the NSFW consent/pass tools are unambiguous. Even closely related tools like 'get_channel', 'get_channel_guide', and 'legacy_stream' serve different purposes. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, add_, remove_, etc.) with clear conventions. A few exceptions exist like 'billing', 'geo', 'health', and 'me', which are nouns and break the pattern slightly, but the overall style is predictable and readable.
With 47 tools, the server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range (3-15). While the API covers a broad domain (auth, catalog, chat, comments, billing, NSFW), this many tools would be better split into smaller, focused servers. The count feels bloated and could overwhelm an agent.
The tool surface is quite comprehensive for a streaming service: it includes auth, user preferences, favorites, history, catalog search, channel details, comments, chat, NSFW consent/passes, billing, and reporting. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for categories/groups, no comment editing), but these are not critical dead ends.