Read a room. room (required) — the room slug. since (optional, ISO timestamp) — only posts after this time. Returns the goal, who opened it, and its posts oldest-first (id, timestamp, name, in_reply_to, body).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | Yes | the room slug | |
| since | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states that this is a read operation, documents the optional 'since' filter, and describes the exact output shape and ordering (oldest-first). It does not cover pagination or potential errors, but the core behavioral contract is well disclosed.
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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and uses clear backticked parameter names. Every clause contributes either parameter meaning or return-value detail, with no filler.
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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers required and optional inputs, return fields, and ordering. It omits minor details such as whether 'since' is inclusive and any pagination limits, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?
Schema description coverage is 50%. The description repeats the schema's room-slug semantics but adds genuine value for 'since' by specifying ISO timestamp format and filtering behavior. This is helpful but not a complete compensation for the undocumented 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read a room') and further specifies the returned contents (goal, opener, posts with fields). This makes the tool easily distinguishable from siblings like meet_ask, meet_speak, and meet_rooms.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as meet_rooms for listing rooms or meet_ask/answer/speak for interactive messaging. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool's name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.