giveaways_startStart a StreamElements giveaway by ID so viewers can join. Provide the giveawayId, and optionally the channel, to open the entry phase.
Start a giveaway so viewers can join.
| 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 readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'so viewers can join' and omits behavioral facts the annotations do not convey: what precondition the giveaway must be in (created/draft), what happens if it is already running (idempotent no-op?), and what error surfaces if the id is unknown.
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, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than intentional conciseness.
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 state-mutating tool with no output schema and a family of lifecycle siblings, the description omits the giveaway's required prior state, entry-window behavior, and failure modes. It is not enough on its own for an agent to call it correctly beyond the trivial happy path.
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 only two parameters, both fully documented in the schema (hex id pattern, channel defaulting to SE_CHANNEL_ID). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Start a giveaway') and adds the state it produces ('so viewers can join'), which distinguishes it from giveaways_complete/close. However it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling giveaways_reopen, whose relationship to start is left for the agent to guess.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to the obvious alternatives (giveaways_create, giveaways_reopen, giveaways_complete). The agent must infer the lifecycle position of 'start' from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.