commands_getRetrieve a specific custom chat command from StreamElements using its 24-character ID, optionally specifying the channel, so assistants can inspect command details.
Get one custom command 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. | |
| 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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what is returned, whether missing ids error, or channel scoping behavior.
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 short sentence with the key lookup constraint (by id) front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed 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 read-by-id tool with annotations covering safety this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should at least hint at what a retrieved command contains or what happens on an unknown id. The channel parameter's scoping role is also left entirely to 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%, including format and default details for channel and commandId, so the schema carries the load. The description's 'by id' only reaffirms the required parameter and adds no new semantic detail, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 (Get) and resource (custom command) plus the lookup key (id), which distinguishes it from commands_list and commands_create. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls 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 statement of when to use this versus commands_list, commands_list_public, or commands_list_default, and no prerequisites or context. The 'by id' phrasing implies you must already have a commandId, but that is inference, not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.