commands_list_publicList a channel's public commands as displayed on its StreamElements command page. Use it to retrieve available chat commands for a given channel or the token owner's channel.
List the channel's public commands, as shown on its public StreamElements command page.
| 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 adds only the framing that results mirror the public StreamElements command page; it says nothing about filtering, ordering, or whether private/moderation commands are excluded.
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 well-formed sentence with no filler and the key scope qualifier ('public') placed early. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to carry the differentiation the sibling set demands.
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 an optional-parameter, read-only list tool this is minimally adequate, and annotations cover the safety profile. With no output schema, however, the description leaves the return shape and the public-vs-all command distinction unaddressed, which is the main thing an agent would need.
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?
With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully explains the optional 'channel' id and its fallback behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which matches the baseline 3 when schema coverage is complete.
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?
The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the channel's public commands') and qualifies the scope with 'public', which hints at a distinction from commands_list. However, it never names the sibling it differs from, so an agent must infer the difference between this and commands_list / commands_list_default.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'public' suggests this is the tool for commands visible on the public command page, as opposed to all commands a moderator would see. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative, despite several near-identical siblings (commands_list, commands_list_default).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.