bot_counter_getRetrieve the current value of a named StreamElements bot counter to check counts updated by chat commands or ${count} placeholders.
Get the current value of a named bot counter (the counters that commands update and print with ${count}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | No | StreamElements channel id (24-char hex). Defaults to SE_CHANNEL_ID or the channel that owns the token. | |
| counter | Yes | Counter name |
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 useful domain context about counters being updated by commands, but says nothing about behavior for a missing counter, error cases, or scope beyond 'current value'.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the return ('current value') stated first and the clarifying parenthetical doing real work. Nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and annotations covering safety and open-world access, the definition covers what the tool returns and what a counter is. Only edge-case behavior (nonexistent counter, default channel) is left implicit, and the channel default is already in the schema.
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%: both 'counter' and the optional 'channel' (with its default resolution rules) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating that the counter is named, so the baseline 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 the current value of a named bot counter') and the parenthetical defines what a bot counter is, tying it to commands and the ${count} placeholder. There are no competing counter siblings to distinguish from, so the lack of explicit sibling differentiation costs little.
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?
The description explains what a counter is but never says when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor mentions prerequisites or that the counter must already exist. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.