bot_set_languageSet the language for a StreamElements bot's built-in responses by specifying a lowercase ISO code, so chat replies match your channel's audience.
Set the language the bot uses for its built-in responses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | No | StreamElements channel id (24-char hex). Defaults to SE_CHANNEL_ID or the channel that owns the token. | |
| language | Yes | Lowercase ISO language code, e.g. en, de, es, fr |
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=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description contributes one useful behavioral detail beyond that — that only built-in responses are affected, not custom commands — but says nothing about whether the change persists, takes effect immediately, or requires specific permissions/plan level.
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 zero filler; the verb, resource, and scope qualifier arrive in one pass. 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 simple idempotent setter with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering mutability, this is roughly adequate. It is thin, though: an agent cannot tell whether the setting is per-channel, whether it overwrites a previous value, or what confirmation the call returns.
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%, so both parameters (channel, language) are already documented in the schema with an ISO-code example and a channel-id default rule. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 (Set) and resource (the bot's language) and adds a meaningful scope qualifier: it governs 'built-in responses'. That distinguishes it from the other bot_* siblings (bot_say, bot_mute, bot_levels_*), though the description itself never names those siblings or explicitly excludes them.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives mentioned. An agent gets no signal about when this tool is appropriate versus the rest of the bot_* family, nor about whether the channel parameter needs to be supplied or defaults automatically.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.