POST /rooms/:roomID/mute — Mute a room
Mute notifications for a room. Sets mutedUntilAt to a far-future timestamp (no expiry) — the room stays muted until explicitly unmuted. The room still appears in the inbox; only notifications are suppressed.
Access: the caller must be a member/subscriber of the room.
⚠️ WRITE operation: this mutates your DC account data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roomID | Yes | Room ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it is a WRITE operation, sets a persistent mute state until explicitly unmuted, and only suppresses notifications (room still visible). This covers key behavioral traits, though it could mention idempotency or rate limits.
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 well-structured with a clear first line (HTTP method and path), followed by a precise explanation, access condition, and a warning label. Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding, with no extraneous text.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema) and the context provided (effect, access, mutation warning), the description is fully adequate. No additional details are required.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description implicitly identifies roomID as the path parameter. However, it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Room ID' description. Baseline 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 clearly states the action (Mute), the resource (a room), and the specific effect: suppressing notifications while keeping the room in the inbox. It explicitly mentions the far-future timestamp and the need for explicit unmuting, distinguishing it from related tools like rooms_unmute_create.
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?
It provides access requirements (must be a member/subscriber) and a warning about mutation, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rooms_unmute_create or other notification-related tools). The context is clear enough for most use cases.
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.
Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.
85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.
The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.
