users_accessList users granted access to manage a StreamElements channel. Retrieve the access list for permission audits or team management.
List the channel's access list: users who have been granted access to manage this channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 structurally. The description usefully clarifies the semantics of the returned data set (manage-access grantees), but adds nothing about auth requirements, result size, or pagination behavior.
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 colon clause adds real meaning (definition of who is listed) rather than restating the name.
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 parameterless read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema to return, the description supplies the one thing needed: what the list represents. Minor gaps (ordering, completeness of the list) are not material for correct invocation.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level ambiguity exists.
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 (List) and resource (channel's access list), then clarifies what the list contains: users granted access to manage the channel. An agent can tell this apart from token-revocation siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling.
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 clause 'users who have been granted access to manage this channel' implicitly frames the use case (auditing who can manage the channel), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.