songrequests_player_statusGet the current playback state of a StreamElements song request media player, including playing or paused status and volume, for a specified channel.
Get the media player's current state (playing or paused, volume and so on).
| 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 covered. The description adds a small amount of value by hinting at the data returned, but 'and so on' leaves the actual state fields undefined and nothing is said about freshness, channel scoping behavior, or error cases.
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 the essential returned state are stated 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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional, fully documented parameter, this is close to adequate. Without an output schema, however, the description should pin down the returned fields rather than closing with the vague 'and so on'.
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?
There is one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the channel id and its defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or fallback detail beyond the schema text, which is the expected baseline here.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the media player's current state') and enumerates returned fields (playing or paused, volume). It is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from near-identical siblings such as songrequests_playing and songrequests_playing_global.
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 call this versus alternatives, and the closest siblings (songrequests_playing, songrequests_playing_global) are never mentioned. The use case is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.