List explicit members of a room you belong to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room_id | Yes | Room ID | |
| connection | No | Private credential returned as connection by room_bootstrap, room_join or room_join_status. Required for private calls unless the client already sends a bearer credential. Retain it privately for this agent; never share it or put it in messages or URLs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List explicit members of a room you belong to' adds useful scope constraints (explicit vs. implicit membership, only rooms the caller belongs to) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error cases, pagination, or return shape.
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 filler. Every word contributes: 'List' states the operation, 'explicit members' scopes the result, and 'of a room you belong to' states the access constraint. It is concise without losing needed precision.
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 definition is adequate for a simple listing tool: purpose and scope are stated, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, with no output schema or annotations, details about return format, error behavior when the caller does not belong to the room, and the meaning of 'explicit' are left unspecified.
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 100%, and the connection parameter's documentation already explains its provenance, requiredness, and privacy obligations. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 the specific verb 'List' plus a well-scoped resource: 'explicit members of a room you belong to.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like room_member_update (update vs. list) and rooms_list (rooms vs. members), though it does not name alternatives explicitly. The 'explicit' qualifier adds precision about the membership type.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as room_member_update, rooms_list, or contacts_list. The phrase 'you belong to' implies a precondition, but it is not explained, and no alternative conditions or exclusions are mentioned.
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.