points_list_topList viewers ranked by current points to find the points leaderboard. Use limit and offset to page through results.
List viewers ranked by current points (the points leaderboard).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items per page | |
| offset | No | Number of items to skip, for paging | |
| 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 'current points' qualifier, which hints this reflects live balances rather than all-time totals, but says nothing about paging behavior, ordering ties, or how many entries come back.
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 core action and resource lead, and the parenthetical clarifies rather than pads.
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?
A read-only paginated list needs little explanation, and annotations plus the fully documented schema carry most of the load. Still, the description leaves the alltime/watchtime sibling boundary and the leaderboard's scope ambiguous for an agent choosing between four sibling points-listing tools.
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%: limit, offset, and channel are each documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning such as whether limit caps the leaderboard size versus a page window.
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: 'List viewers ranked by current points', with a parenthetical identifying it as the points leaderboard. The word 'current' implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like points_list_alltime and points_list_watchtime, but those siblings are never named, so the agent must infer the distinction.
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 guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the near-identical siblings points_list_alltime and points_list_watchtime that an agent would need to disambiguate against. 'The points leaderboard' implies a purpose but offers no routing logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.