songrequests_get_public_settingsRetrieve the public media request settings for a StreamElements channel to review song request configuration without exposing private details.
Get the public subset of the channel's media request settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 safety is covered. The description adds that only the public subset of settings is returned, which is meaningful disclosure about scope, but it says nothing about auth requirements or the shape of the response beyond 'public'.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the distinguishing scope qualifier comes before the resource name, so the key information lands immediately.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information, and 'public subset of settings' is vague about what fields actually come back. For a simple parameterless read this is adequate but leaves a clear gap on returned content.
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% and the single channel parameter is fully documented in the schema (format, defaulting behavior). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, 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 ('Get') and resource ('the channel's media request settings') with a scope qualifier ('public subset') that distinguishes it from the sibling songrequests_get_settings. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the 'public subset' phrasing 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 'public subset' phrasing implies this is the unauthenticated/exposed variant of the settings read, which hints at when to pick it over songrequests_get_settings, but no explicit when-to-use or exclusion is stated. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.