Histórico de canais assistidos pelo dono.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Itens por página. Acima de 50 é silenciosamente reduzido a 50. | |
| offset | No | Quantos itens pular. Use `next_offset` da resposta anterior. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / limit / defaultAdded value: +20Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Itens por página. Acima de 50 é silenciosamente reduzido a 50."Input schema / properties / offset / defaultAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / offset / descriptionAdded value: +"Quantos itens pular. Use `next_offset` da resposta anterior."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the resource and does not mention pagination behavior, the silent 50-item cap, ordering, authentication, or response format. Some of this appears in parameter descriptions, but the tool description itself is not transparent.
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 phrase with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is so minimal that it sacrifices informative content.
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 paginated list endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain what 'dono' refers to, how entries are ordered, or what the response looks like. The schema covers pagination, but broader context needed for correct invocation is missing.
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%, with limit and offset both documented, including the silent reduction to 50 and the use of next_offset. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?
The description clearly identifies the resource: 'Histórico de canais assistidos pelo dono' (history of channels watched by the owner). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_library or list_favorites, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not name any sibling to differentiate from.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as record_watch, clear_history, or forget_watch. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned; the only usage signal is the tool name and the resource phrase.
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.