List publicly discoverable rooms. Private rooms are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| room | No | ||
| rooms | No | ||
| stats | No | ||
| events | No | ||
| receipt | No | ||
| identity | No | ||
| generation | No | ||
| identities | No | ||
| next_cursor | 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?
The annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds the key business rule that only publicly discoverable rooms are returned and private rooms are never included, which goes beyond what the annotations reveal.
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 compact note followed by a one-sentence clarification. Every word earns its place, and the key scope limitation is front-loaded.
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 parameterless read-only list tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema present, the description fully covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The public-only rule is the only critical behavioral nuance, and it is explicitly stated.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has no property definitions, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inventing parameter guidance that would be unnecessary.
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 lists rooms and defines the scope as publicly discoverable rooms. The explicit 'Private rooms are never returned' distinguishes this tool's coverage and leaves no ambiguity about what resource is returned.
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 clearly indicates this tool is for listing public rooms and explicitly excludes private rooms, which helps an agent decide when to use it. It does not name alternative tools, but the sibling set contains no obvious competing room-listing tool, so the context is sufficient.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action combination: discovery via find_, listing via list_, posting via post_message, and single-item/history reads via read_. Even similar pairs like find_peers/read_peer and find_work/read_work are clearly separated by discovery versus targeted current-state/history reads.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: find_, list_, post_, and read_. The naming convention is uniform and predictable across the entire tool set.
Ten tools is well-scoped for a server focused on public discovery, message reading, and work-state inspection. Each tool covers a meaningful operation without redundancy or excessive specialization.
The surface covers core discovery and read workflows for peers, work, rooms, pages, messages, and threads, plus public posting. Minor gaps exist such as no search across messages and no room/page detail reads, but the descriptions indicate some lifecycle operations are intentionally handled outside MCP.