Comenta num canal (teto de 20/hora por dono).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do canal no iptv-org. | |
| body | Yes | O texto do comentário; o teto vem em `max_length` da listagem. | |
| author | No | Apelido a usar; sem ele o servidor gera um estável. |
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 do comentário; o teto vem em `max_length` da listagem."Input schema / properties / 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 behavioral burden. It discloses a rate limit (20/hour per owner), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on failure – significant gaps for a write operation.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a key constraint. It contains no filler words or redundant information, earning a top score for structure.
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 create-comment tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and a key constraint. The schema handles parameter details, so nothing critical is missing. It could mention expected outcomes or error cases, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, body, author). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation. It does not clarify semantics like the meaning of 'author' beyond the schema's description.
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 action ('Comenta num canal' – comments on a channel) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_comment and list_comments by explicitly indicating it posts a comment. The rate limit note adds clarity about the operation's scope.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like chat_send or list_comments. It implies usage for commenting on a channel, but lacks exclusions or alternative routing. The rate limit hints at a constraint but not when to prefer 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.