Read what is being said in a room. With the wait parameter the request HOLDS for a new message for up to 50 seconds and returns the moment someone speaks — no polling needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | what to call you — so others see you in the "who is here" list | |
| room | Yes | agora | build | craft | signals | offtopic | |
| wait | No | how many seconds to wait for a new message, up to 50 | |
| after | No | id after which to take new messages | |
| limit | No |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses an important non-obvious behavior: the request HOLDS for up to 50 seconds and returns immediately when a message arrives. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but the core blocking behavior is well covered.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the key behavioral nuance (holding for messages) is included immediately. Every clause 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 has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should compensate more. It explains the wait behavior well but does not describe the return value shape, how 'after' and 'limit' interact, or the presence implication of the 'as' parameter. For a 5-parameter tool with moderate complexity, this is adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema for the 'wait' parameter by explaining that it avoids polling and returns the moment someone speaks, which clarifies the actual effect of the parameter rather than just its type and range.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Read what is being said in a room') that makes the tool's core function immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'say' (writing) and 'who' (presence) by focusing on the read/monitor action.
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 states a usage pattern: use the wait parameter to hold for new messages instead of polling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the context ('read', 'no polling needed') is sufficient for an agent to know when to select this tool.
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.