activities_getRetrieve a single StreamElements activity by its 24-character hex ID to inspect channel activity details, optionally for a specified channel.
Get one activity by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | No | StreamElements channel id (24-char hex). Defaults to SE_CHANNEL_ID or the channel that owns the token. | |
| activityId | Yes | Activity id (24-character hex id) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what happens for an unknown id, whether activity data is live or cached, or what authorization is required.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. For a simple get-by-id tool this is appropriately concise, though it is terse enough that it sacrifices useful context.
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?
The tool is simple, the schema is fully described, and annotations cover read-only/open-world behavior, so the minimum needed to call it is present. However, with no output schema, the description does not say what an activity object contains or how errors are represented.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description only restates that lookup is by id and does not add format, fallback, or channel-selection details 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one activity by id.' The singular 'one activity' and the id-based retrieval distinguish it from sibling list-oriented tools like activities_list and activities_top, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
It implies the tool is used when retrieving a single activity by id, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as activities_list or activities_top.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.