points_list_watchtimeList viewers ranked by watchtime to identify active supporters and measure channel engagement. Supports limit and offset for paging results.
List viewers ranked by watchtime.
| 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 ranking dimension (watchtime), and says nothing about pagination behavior, sort direction, or whether the underlying time window is configurable — modest added value given the annotations do the heavy lifting.
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 wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool whose scope and ranking semantics would benefit from one clarifying clause.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description should indicate the shape of the result (ranked viewers with watchtime totals) and the time window. Neither is present, leaving a gap in what the agent should expect to receive.
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 limit, offset, and channel are already documented in the schema with defaults and ranges. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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+resource: 'List viewers ranked by watchtime.' An agent can tell it returns a ranked viewer list, which is distinct from points_list_top/points_list_alltime in substance. However, it never names those siblings or clarifies how it differs from other leaderboard-style tools, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus points_list_top, points_list_alltime, or points_get_user_rank, all of which also return rankings. No preconditions, no exclusions, no context about the time window the watchtime covers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.