List streams in your WAVE account with pagination and status filters to find idle, live, or ended streams.
List streams in your WAVE account (GET /v1/streams), with pagination and status filtering
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of streams to return (1-100, default 50) | |
| offset | No | Number of streams to skip for pagination (default 0) | |
| status | No | Filter by stream status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum number of streams to return (1-100, default 25)"New value: +"Maximum number of streams to return (1-100, default 50)"Input schema / properties / offset / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / status / enumPrevious value: -[
- "active",
- "idle",
- "error",
- "all"
-]New value: +[
+ "idle",
+ "live",
+ "ended"
+]v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, and mentions pagination and status filtering. However, it does not disclose response shape, ordering, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral details beyond the endpoint.
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 contains the core purpose and the API endpoint, then the supporting modifiers (pagination, status filtering). Every part is useful and nothing is redundant.
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 list tool with no required parameters and fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It does not describe the return payload since no output schema exists, but the basic purpose and filtering behavior are enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, offset, status). The description's mention of 'pagination and status filtering' adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('List streams'), the resource ('streams in your WAVE account'), and the exact API endpoint (GET /v1/streams). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like wave_list_productions or wave_get_stream_health.
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 when to use it: whenever an agent needs to list streams in the WAVE account. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives, mention when not to use it, or note exclusions such as listings scoped to productions or other resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.