giveaways_reopenReopen a closed StreamElements giveaway to let viewers join again. Use it when a giveaway ended too soon or needs another entry window.
Reopen a closed giveaway so viewers can join again.
| 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 non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the state-transition meaning of the operation, but says nothing about whether existing entrants are preserved, whether reopening a non-closed giveaway errors, or what state the giveaway lands in.
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, tight sentence that front-loads the action and its effect. No wasted words and nothing buried.
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 two-parameter state-transition tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps around entrant preservation and precondition errors keep it short of a 5.
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%, with both parameters fully documented (24-char hex id, channel defaulting to SE_CHANNEL_ID). The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable given the schema carries the full burden.
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 ('Reopen') and resource ('a closed giveaway') plus the resulting effect ('viewers can join again'), which cleanly separates it from giveaways_close, giveaways_complete, and giveaways_start. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the state transition makes the distinction inferable.
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?
The phrase 'a closed giveaway' implies the precondition (the giveaway must already be closed), which is useful implicit guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus giveaways_start or giveaways_update, and no mention of what happens if the giveaway is not closed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.