commands_listList a channel's custom chat bot commands with their replies, cooldowns, costs, and access levels. Helps manage and audit chat bot behavior.
List the channel's custom chat bot commands with their replies, cooldowns, costs and access levels.
| 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 is covered. The description usefully discloses the shape of what comes back (replies, cooldowns, costs, access levels), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or the fact that it defaults to the token's own channel — behavior an agent would want before calling.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource and immediately followed by the payload details. Nothing could be trimmed 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 parameterless-friendly read-only list call with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description's field enumeration partly compensates for the missing return documentation. It remains incomplete on sibling disambiguation and pagination/result-size behavior, which matters in a family with three near-duplicate list tools.
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?
There is only one optional parameter (channel) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the 24-char hex format and the SE_CHANNEL_ID fallback. The description adds nothing about the channel parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (List) and resource (the channel's custom chat bot commands) and even enumerates the data returned (replies, cooldowns, costs, access levels). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings commands_list_public, commands_list_default, or commands_get, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which list endpoint 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 no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no named alternative. With three sibling list/get tools for commands (commands_list_public, commands_list_default, commands_get) in the same family, the absence of any routing hint is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.