Relata se um canal tocou (ok=true) ou não (ok=false + code). Navegador, SO e país saem do pedido, não do corpo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | `true` se tocou, `false` se falhou. | |
| code | No | Por que falhou; só quando `ok` é `false`. | |
| channel_id | Yes | Canal que você tentou assistir. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / channel_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Canal que você tentou assistir."Input schema / properties / code / descriptionAdded value: +"Por que falhou; só quando `ok` é `false`."Input schema / properties / code / enumAdded value: +[
+ "cors",
+ "geo",
+ "sumiu",
+ "codec",
+ "playlist",
+ "sem_resposta",
+ "protocolo",
+ "sem_stream",
+ "outro"
+]Input schema / properties / ok / descriptionAdded value: +"`true` se tocou, `false` se falhou."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a behavioral detail: that browser, OS, and country are derived from the request rather than the body. It does not mention side effects, but the report nature suggests it is read-only. No annotations are provided, so this transparency is valuable.
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 brief and to the point, consisting of two sentences that convey essential information without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 reporting tool, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the meaning of the boolean and error code, and notes about request parameters. No output schema exists, so no return value description is needed.
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?
The schema provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (ok, code, channel_id). The description further clarifies the relationship between ok and code (code is provided only when ok=false), enhancing the semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.
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: reporting whether a channel played (ok=true) or failed (ok=false + code). It also clarifies that browser, OS, and country are taken from the request, not the body, which adds useful context.
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 tool is used after attempting to play a channel, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like 'play_reports'. There is no direct comparison or condition provided.
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.