Retrieve a Twitch channel's streaming schedule by login name to see upcoming broadcasts and plan viewing.
Get a Twitch channel's streaming schedule 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 this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds essentially no behavioral detail beyond that: it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the schedule is returned for upcoming streams only. Its only extra information, 'by its login name,' is already present in the schema.
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 wasted words. It states the operation and the key input in one line.
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?
The tool has three parameters, one of which is undocumented, and includes credential parameters that the description never explains. With no output schema and no mention of authentication expectations, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently.
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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It mentions the channel login name, but says nothing about the two credential parameters client_id and client_secret, which are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Twitch channel's streaming schedule.' It is clear what the tool returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like twitch_channel_info or twitch_get_stream, so an agent cannot tell when this is the right Twitch tool without further inference.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as twitch_channel_info, twitch_get_stream, or twitch_search_streams. The phrase 'by its login name' describes the input, not a usage condition or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.