commands_deletePermanently deletes a custom StreamElements command by its 24-character command ID, with an optional channel ID to target the correct channel.
Permanently delete a custom command.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | No | StreamElements channel id (24-char hex). Defaults to SE_CHANNEL_ID or the channel that owns the token. | |
| commandId | Yes | Command 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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description reinforces irreversibility with 'Permanently', but adds nothing about behavior on a non-existent or already-deleted commandId, whether the command disappears from commands_list immediately, or any cascade effects.
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 six-word sentence with the destructive qualifier front and center — nothing wasted and nothing buried. However, the brevity edges toward under-specification for a destructive operation rather than being a model of economical completeness.
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 (2 params, 1 required, no nesting, no output schema) and annotations carry the safety semantics, so the description is close to sufficient. It still omits failure modes and scoping effects that matter for an irreversible delete, leaving it at minimum viable.
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%: commandId is documented with its 24-hex pattern and channel is documented with its default resolution rule. The description adds no parameter detail whatsoever, 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 (delete) and resource (custom command), which cleanly separates it from commands_create, commands_update, and commands_get amongst the siblings. The adverb 'Permanently' adds a meaningful qualifier. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to delete versus update (e.g., commands_update for renaming), no preconditions such as ownership or channel scoping, and no warning to confirm with the user before an irreversible action. The agent must infer all of this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.