Declara 18+ e aceita os termos de conteúdo adulto; libera nsfw=1 para este dono.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| birth_date | Yes | Data de nascimento, AAAA-MM-DD. | |
| accept_terms | Yes | Tem que ser `true` — aceite explícito. | |
| terms_version | No | Versão dos termos aceita; use a que veio no GET. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / accept_terms / descriptionAdded value: +"Tem que ser `true` — aceite explícito."Input schema / properties / birth_date / descriptionAdded value: +"Data de nascimento, AAAA-MM-DD."Input schema / properties / terms_version / descriptionAdded value: +"Versão dos termos aceita; use a que veio no GET."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sets nsfw=1 for the owner, which is a behavioral effect. However, it does not mention whether consent is permanent, reversible, or has legal implications, nor does it note any authentication requirements or failure conditions. The description is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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 main purpose and effect. There is no wasted wording, and it is easily scannable by an agent.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the main outcome (nsfw=1) and the target (owner). It does not explain return values or edge cases, but those are not critical for a consent-acceptance tool. It could mention validation of birth_date (e.g., must be 18+), but the schema already implies format.
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 all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, just reiterates the overall effect. This meets the baseline for full coverage, but does not go beyond it.
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's purpose: declaring 18+ status, accepting adult content terms, and enabling nsfw=1 for the current owner. It is specific about the action and resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like nsfw_consent_revoke and nsfw_consent_status by naming the effect (libera nsfw=1).
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?
The description implies the use case (user consents to adult content), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nsfw_consent_status or nsfw_consent_revoke. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites beyond the required parameters.
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.