giveaways_refundCancel a giveaway and refund every entrant's tickets. Use it to void an active giveaway and return spent tickets to all participants in one step.
Cancel a giveaway and refund every entrant's tickets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | No | StreamElements channel id (24-char hex). Defaults to SE_CHANNEL_ID or the channel that owns the token. | |
| giveawayId | Yes | Giveaway 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 description need not restate the safety profile. It does add the one thing annotations can't convey — that every entrant's tickets are refunded and the giveaway is cancelled — but it omits irreversibility, permission needs, and what happens to already-drawn winners.
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 10-word sentence with the destructive action front-loaded and zero padding. Nothing to trim.
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 destructive, non-reversible batch operation with no output schema, the description is thin: it says what happens to tickets but not whether the operation can be undone or what a partially-refunded state looks like. Adequate but with a clear gap given the tool's blast radius.
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% (giveawayId 24-char hex pattern, channel defaulting to SE_CHANNEL_ID), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about channel scoping or identifier format, 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 precise verb pair (cancel + refund) and the resource (giveaway), with the side effect on entrants' tickets called out, which separates it from giveaways_close/complete. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must still infer the boundary against giveaways_delete or contests_refund.
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?
No when-to-use framing, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the giveaway must be closed first), and no alternative named despite giveaways_close, giveaways_delete and contests_refund sitting in the sibling list. The agent is left to guess the routing entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.