points_get_userGet a viewer's current points, all-time points, and watchtime for a StreamElements channel. Pass the viewer username and optional channel ID.
Get a viewer's current points, all-time points and watchtime on the channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | Viewer username (login name, lowercase) | |
| 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. With no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields (current points, all-time points, watchtime) is genuinely useful added context, but it says nothing about error behavior for unknown users or channel scoping.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its returned fields lead the sentence.
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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields, and annotations cover the read-only nature. It still omits what happens when the viewer is unknown or how the channel default resolves, leaving modest gaps.
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%, so both parameters (user, channel with its SE_CHANNEL_ID defaulting rule) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond 'a viewer's', so the baseline 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 ('Get') and resource ('viewer's points/watchtime') and enumerates the exact data returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours like points_get_user_rank, points_list_alltime, or points_list_watchtime, which a careful agent still has to disambiguate by name.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus points_get_user_rank, points_list_alltime, or points_list_watchtime, even though these siblings overlap heavily on the same data. The agent must infer selection purely from tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.