Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
StreamHub MCP

StreamHub MCP

by cristianodmtsb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_platforms

Lists supported streaming platforms—YouTube, Twitch, and Kick—along with each platform's current authentication status so agents can verify available targets before configuring streams.

Instructions

Lists all supported streaming platforms (YouTube, Twitch, Kick) and their current authentication status.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_platforms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the payload: every supported platform plus its live auth status. That tells the agent this is a state read that will reveal which platforms still need credentials, though it says nothing about ordering, freshness of the status, or failure behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and uses its back half to enumerate the platforms and the returned status field. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive listing with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it names all returned platforms and the per-platform auth status, which is the key return-value information. Minor gap is the absence of any note on whether authentication status is cached or freshly resolved.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters (empty object schema), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. It correctly adds no parameter prose, which is appropriate here.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Specific verb ('Lists') plus resource ('all supported streaming platforms'), with the concrete platform names and the returned attribute (authentication status) spelled out. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the sibling 'authenticate_platform', which mutates that status.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of 'current authentication status' suggests calling it to check state before invoking authenticate_platform, but the description never says when to use this versus that sibling or names any prerequisite. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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