Fetch information about a Twitch channel by login name, using client credentials when authenticated access is required.
Get information about a Twitch channel by its login name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | Twitch channel login name, e.g. 'shroud' | |
| client_id | No | ||
| client_secret | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Input schema / properties / broadcaster_idRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / channelAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Twitch channel login name, e.g. 'shroud'",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "broadcaster_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "channel"
+]v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — no mention of what data a channel lookup returns, whether auth credentials are required or where to source them, or how failures (e.g., unknown channel) are surfaced.
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 tight sentence with no filler and the key detail (login name) included. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.
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 lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not tell the agent what fields come back or how the client_id/client_secret parameters should be supplied, which matters given the low schema coverage.
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?
Only the 'channel' parameter is documented in the schema (33% coverage); client_id and client_secret are bare strings in both schema and description. The description's phrase 'by its login name' adds a small hint that the argument is a login rather than a numeric ID, but it leaves the two credential parameters completely unexplained for a tool that clearly needs them.
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 ('Get information') and resource ('a Twitch channel') with a lookup key ('login name'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as twitch_get_stream or twitch_search_streams, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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 use this rather than twitch_search_streams, twitch_get_stream, or twitch_search_games, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.