Metadados públicos: site oficial do canal, URL da transmissão para copiar em outro player e player legado HTTP. Recusa adulto e bloqueados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID público do stream, incluindo compatibilidade de IDs antigos. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"ID público do stream, incluindo compatibilidade de IDs antigos."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it refuses adult and blocked content. However, it doesn't explain the failure mode (error vs empty response), permissions, or rate limits. The legacy HTTP player mention hints at legacy nature but not its implications.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core metadata types and the refusal behavior. No waste, no redundancy.
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 simple one-parameter metadata retrieval, the description covers what is returned and a notable restriction. However, without an output schema, it doesn't specify response shape or exact field names, and it omits usage guidance. It's adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is 100%: the parameter description explains the ID is public and supports legacy IDs. The tool description adds no extra parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already handles semantics.
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 the tool returns public metadata: official channel website, stream URL for other players, and legacy HTTP player. The verb is implicit (returns/provides) but the resource and content are explicit. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_channel, but the legacy focus and specific metadata list set it apart.
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 on when to use this vs alternatives. The description doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when this is preferred over get_channel or search_channels. It only describes what it does, not when to choose it.
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.