channels_get_detailsRetrieve extended details for a StreamElements channel, including profile, settings, and linked provider information. Use it to inspect channel configuration or linked accounts.
Get extended details for a channel (profile, settings and linked provider information).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | No | StreamElements channel id (24-char hex). Defaults to SE_CHANNEL_ID or the channel that owns the token. |
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 and cross-boundary nature are covered. The description adds the shape of the returned payload, which is useful, but says nothing about auth/scopes, whether the token owner's channel is used by default, or rate limits.
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 resource first and the payload parenthetically enumerated; nothing is wasted. It is terse rather than padded.
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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming what is returned (profile, settings, provider info) and the annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is that it does not help the agent disambiguate from channels_get/channels_me.
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% and the single optional "channel" parameter is already fully documented there, including the SE_CHANNEL_ID/token-owner default. The description adds no syntax, format, or override semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.
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+resource ("Get extended details for a channel") and enumerates the payload (profile, settings, linked provider information), so the agent knows what it retrieves. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely-named siblings channels_get and channels_me, so the agent must guess which one to pick.
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 only a weak implicit hint in the word "extended" that this returns more than a basic channel fetch. No when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no routing against channels_get or channels_me is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.