Relatos crus de um canal, com endereço — só operador (METRICS_TOKEN). Use para investigar um canal específico.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | `0` traz só as falhas — é o recorte que interessa numa investigação. | |
| limit | No | Itens por página. Acima de 50 é silenciosamente reduzido a 50. | |
| channel_id | No | Restringe a um canal. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / channel_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Restringe a um canal."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 / ok / descriptionAdded value: +"`0` traz só as falhas — é o recorte que interessa numa investigação."Input schema / properties / ok / enumAdded value: +[
+ "0"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the operator token requirement (METRICS_TOKEN) and hints at 'raw' data, but does not state whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, or how failures are presented. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, compact sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core purpose. However, the ambiguity of 'relatos crus' slightly detracts from overall clarity, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides some context (channel focus, operator access, raw reports with address) but lacks details on return format, error behavior, and pagination beyond the schema. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond reinforcing the channel investigation use case; it does not clarify the 'ok' enum semantics or limit behavior beyond what the schema already states.
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 specific resource ('relatos crus de um canal') and an implied retrieval action, and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing operator-only access and channel focus. However, 'relatos crus' is ambiguous—it could mean raw logs, reports, or something else—so it is not fully precise.
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?
It provides a clear usage context ('Use para investigar um canal específico') but does not mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like channel_health or get_channel. The operator-only note implies access control but not when to choose this over other tools.
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.