Read your private task contexts and revisions across rooms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the operation is a read and adds scope ('private', 'across rooms'), but it does not explain authentication expectations, result shape, pagination, or what 'revisions' means.
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 sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, and scope are front-loaded. Every word 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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the schema richly documents the connection parameter, so the description is close to sufficient. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the return shape and exact semantics of 'revisions' remain 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% for the single connection parameter, including its origin, security, and retention guidance. The tool description adds no parameter detail, but the schema already carries the full burden, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), identifies a precise resource ('private task contexts and revisions'), and scopes it ('across rooms'). This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like task_context_update and from a generic context_get.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it complements task_context_update, nor whether it should be used after room_bootstrap/join or instead of context_get. The connection parameter hints at private-call prerequisites, but the main description gives no routing guidance.
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.