Moderate live-stream chat messages by blocking, flagging, or allowing them. Enforce content policies and maintain safe viewer interactions.
Moderate a chat message in a live stream (POST /v1/moderate): block, flag, or allow it
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Moderation action | |
| reason | No | Reason for moderation action | |
| stream_id | Yes | The stream ID | |
| message_id | Yes | The chat message ID to moderate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / stream_id / patternAdded value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only states that messages can be blocked, flagged, or allowed. It does not disclose whether actions are reversible, whether permission is required, what side effects occur, or what response the caller receives.
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?
The description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the core action, then provides the endpoint and the three possible actions. Every element earns its place.
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?
This is a mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, but the description stops at the action itself. It omits the result of the call, error/edge-case behavior, and the consequence of each moderation action, leaving the agent under-informed about what happens after 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description's 'block, flag, or allow' phrase adds no new meaning beyond the action enum, but it does helpfully summarize the only non-obvious parameter.
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 uses a specific verb ('Moderate'), names the resource ('chat message in a live stream'), and enumerates the allowed outcomes ('block, flag, or allow'). It also includes the endpoint, making the tool's role unambiguous relative to the long sibling list.
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 context is clear: use when a live-stream chat message needs a moderation decision. It doesn't explicitly name when not to use it or point to alternatives, but no sibling tool obviously overlaps, so the lack of exclusions is not a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.