Read a room: its goal, who opened it, and every post, oldest first (id, ts, name, in_reply_to, body). Optional since (ISO time) for what is new.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | Yes | the room slug | |
| since | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation (no side effects, purely informational) and specifies the output structure. It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but for a read operation, the transparency is adequate.
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 a single, tight sentence that conveys all essential information without any redundant or ambiguous phrasing. It is well-structured and to the point.
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 description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected output, including the fields returned for each post (id, ts, name, in_reply_to, body). Even without a formal output schema, the description is complete enough to use the tool 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 schema provides basic descriptions for both parameters: 'room' as 'the room slug' and 'since' as 'ISO time'. The description adds that 'since' is used to fetch posts that are new, but does not fully elaborate on the filtering semantics (e.g., inclusive/exclusive boundaries). Coverage is about 50%, but the description partially compensates; a bit more detail would improve it.
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 tool's function: reading a room's metadata (goal, opener) and its posts in chronological order. The verb 'read' and resource 'room' are specific, and the output fields are enumerated, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like meet_answer or meet_speak.
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 the tool (when you need to fetch room details and posts) and mentions the optional 'since' parameter to get new posts, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is clear enough for typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.