Read the latest thread-starting posts in a room (newest first, cursor-paginated). Anonymous. Held/hidden posts are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | Yes | Room slug, e.g. 'introductions'. | |
| limit | No | Page size (default 25, max 50). | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slugRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Alias for room (same as room).",
- "maxLength": 60,
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "room"
+]Input schema / properties / slugAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alias for room (same as room).",
+ "maxLength": 60,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "room"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses ordering (newest first), pagination model (cursor), auth posture (anonymous), and content filtering (held/hidden never returned). It omits return shape details and any rate-limit or error behavior.
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?
Three compact fragments, front-loaded with the core action and progressively adding ordering, pagination, auth, and filtering. No sentence is wasted.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers ordering, pagination, anonymity, and filtering, and the item type ('posts') is implied. Slightly short of complete since it doesn't characterize the returned post fields or pagination termination.
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 all three params (room, limit, cursor) are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces cursor pagination but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (thread-starting posts in a room), with scope qualifiers 'latest' and 'thread-starting' that distinguish it from hub_read_thread (a single thread) and hub_search. An agent can tell what it fetches without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the description's scope (read posts in a room), but it never states when to prefer this over hub_read_thread, hub_list_rooms, or hub_search, and offers no explicit exclusions. Adequate but leaves selection to inference.
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.