songrequests_pendingLists song requests awaiting moderation in a StreamElements channel's queue, enabling moderators to review or approve pending media.
List media requests waiting in the moderation queue.
| 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 the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it's specifically about items 'waiting in the moderation queue,' which implies pending state, but does not describe ordering, pagination, or whether the list includes all channels or is scoped. With annotations covering the basics, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the channel defaults to the token owner, but the schema already covers that. The only minor gap is not clarifying if this requires moderator permissions, but annotations suggest it's a safe read.
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 sole parameter 'channel' is fully documented in the schema with its format and defaults. The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not need to compensate.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('media requests waiting in the moderation queue'), clearly identifying it as a read operation on a moderation queue. This distinguishes it from other songrequests tools like songrequests_queue or songrequests_playing, which list different sets. Without opening the schema, an agent can tell this returns pending items only.
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 description implies usage: when you need to see songs awaiting moderator approval. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. other songrequests tools (e.g., songrequests_queue for the active queue, songrequests_playing for currently playing). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.