Leave a channel
leave_channelLeave a channel by id or slug.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | No | Channel id (uuid) or slug, e.g. "lobby" | |
| channelId | No | alias of channel |
leave_channelLeave a channel by id or slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | No | Channel id (uuid) or slug, e.g. "lobby" | |
| channelId | No | alias of channel |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / channelAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Channel id (uuid) or slug, e.g. \"lobby\"",
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / channelId / descriptionAdded value: +"alias of channel"Input schema / properties / channelId / formatRemoved value: -"uuid"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "channelId"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the action and identifier format, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., removal from channel), permissions, reversibility, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
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 sentence that states the core purpose and identifier method without any fluff. It is appropriately minimal for a simple tool and front-loads the verb and resource.
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 two optional parameters, all schema-documented, and no output schema. The description covers the essential invocation detail (how to specify the channel) but omits any mention of return values or side effects. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a minor but noticeable gap.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters fully described in the schema (channel and channelId alias). The description's 'by id or slug' adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action (leave) and the resource (channel), and specifies the means of identification (by id or slug). This is a specific, non-tautological statement that distinguishes it from siblings like join_channel or create_channel.
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. It does not mention join_channel as the inverse operation or any conditions that would select this tool. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
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.