Manda mensagem na sala de um canal por HTTP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | O texto da mensagem, dentro de `max_length`. | |
| author | No | Apelido a usar; sem ele o servidor gera um estável. | |
| channel_id | Yes | ID do canal no iptv-org. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / author / descriptionAdded value: +"Apelido a usar; sem ele o servidor gera um estável."Input schema / properties / body / descriptionAdded value: +"O texto da mensagem, dentro de `max_length`."Input schema / properties / channel_id / descriptionAdded value: +"ID do canal no iptv-org."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says the tool sends a message via HTTP; it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or side effects. For a mutating tool this is a notable gap.
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 short sentence with the action front-loaded. The phrase 'por HTTP' is slightly redundant, but overall there is no waste or clutter.
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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits authentication context, expected usage conditions, and any relationship to sibling chat tools, making it incomplete for safe and correct invocation.
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 the schema already documents body, author, and channel_id. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 states a clear verb ('Manda mensagem') and a specific resource ('na sala de um canal'), making the tool's core action obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like chat_history or post_comment, but the channel-room wording provides enough distinction.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as chat_history or post_comment. The description only states what the tool does, leaving usage decisions entirely 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.
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.