get_channelFetch one channel's subscriber count and see whether it is active. Returns active:false when nobody is subscribed.
Get one channel's subscriber count. Reports active: false when nobody is subscribed to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | Channel name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral detail not available elsewhere - that `active: false` signals zero subscribers - but no output schema exists, so the burden of describing the returned payload is only partially met.
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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded before the response-semantics detail. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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 one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and the `active: false` note is a real addition. However, with no output schema, the description should say more about what else is returned (other fields, error behavior for unknown channels) than a single flag semantic.
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 `channel` parameter (name, length bounds, non-whitespace pattern), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions 'one channel' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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 one channel's subscriber count'), and the singular framing naturally separates it from the sibling list_channels. It doesn't explicitly name any sibling, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_channels, watch_channel, or publish_event. The agent must infer from context that this is a single-channel detail lookup; there are no prerequisites or exclusions given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.