Oferta de transmissão autorizada sob consulta: informações e contatos para produtores. Não ativa streams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Idioma da oferta: pt, en, es, fr ou de; ausente ou desconhecido volta a pt. | pt |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / lang / defaultAdded value: +"pt"Input schema / properties / lang / descriptionAdded value: +"Idioma da oferta: pt, en, es, fr ou de; ausente ou desconhecido volta a pt."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does add a meaningful behavioral trait: this tool does not activate streams. It also implies a read-only, informational function by focusing on 'informações e contatos,' which is adequate for a low-risk lookup tool.
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 two short statements with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying exclusion follows immediately, making it easy for an agent to scan.
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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the tool provides and what it does not do. It does not describe the exact return format, but 'informações e contatos' gives enough general guidance for this low-complexity case.
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%, so the lone 'lang' parameter is already fully documented with its enum and default behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.
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 a resource—authorized transmission offer information and contacts for producers—and includes the key exclusion 'Não ativa streams,' which distinguishes it from stream-activation tools. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get,' but its intended purpose is reasonably clear.
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 gives clear context: use it for producer-facing authorized-broadcast information and contacts. It also provides an explicit when-not ('Não ativa streams'), though it does not name an alternative tool, so it stops short of full guidance.
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.