Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

twitch_streams

Retrieve top live streams for a Twitch game or category, ranked by viewer count, returning stream title, broadcaster, viewers, and tags.

Instructions

Get the top live streams for a Twitch game/category. Returns the top currently-live streams for a Twitch game/category, ranked by viewer count: title, viewer count, broadcaster, and tags.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gameYesTwitch game/category slug (the lowercase URL slug from twitch.tv/directory/category/{slug})
limitNoNumber of streams to return (default 20, max 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.14.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the ranking behavior ('ranked by viewer count') and the returned fields (title, viewer count, broadcaster, tags), which adds value since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, freshness/latency of 'live', or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The second sentence largely restates the first ('Get the top live streams' vs 'Returns the top currently-live streams... ranked by viewer count'), creating redundancy, though the tail of that sentence does add the return-field list. Front-loaded but not fully waste-free.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ranking, and returned fields, which is sufficient for correct invocation. Only the lack of alternatives and operational caveats keeps it short of complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (game slug, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description only references 'game/category' generically and adds no syntax, format, or default/limit detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get the top live streams for a Twitch game/category') and states the selection criterion (ranked by viewer count). It is clear in isolation, though it never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like twitch_search, twitch_channel, or twitch_top_games.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a use case (given a game/category, list its top live streams) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternative. An agent has to infer whether this or twitch_search/twitch_top_games is the right pick.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools