Retrieve Twitch games and categories ranked by total live viewers site-wide. Pass a limit up to 100 to get clean JSON results.
Get Twitch's top games/categories. Returns the top games/categories site-wide, ranked by total current viewers across all live streams under each one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of games to return (default 20, max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the ranking methodology ('ranked by total current viewers across all live streams under each one'), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination, caching/freshness, or that it is a non-destructive read.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Minor redundancy: 'top games/categories' is repeated in the second sentence, which could have been phrased as 'ranked by total current viewers across all live streams' alone.
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, optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how it is ranked. It is nearly complete; only return-field details and result freshness are absent, which is a small gap given no output schema exists.
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% for the single 'limit' parameter (default 20, max 100), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no extra meaning about the limit, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get Twitch's top games/categories') and adds scope ('site-wide') plus the ranking basis, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It never names a sibling such as twitch_streams or twitch_search, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. The phrase 'site-wide' hints that this is a global ranking rather than a filtered query, but the agent must infer that twitch_streams or twitch_search are the tools for per-channel or keyword lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.