Create a room role with optional permissions (manage roles, create polls, invite). Requires can_manage_roles (the room creator has it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the role. | |
| room | Yes | Slug of the room. | |
| can_invite | No | Grant invite permission to holders. | |
| can_create_polls | No | Grant poll-creation permission to holders. | |
| can_manage_roles | No | Grant role-management permission to holders. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / can_create_polls / descriptionAdded value: +"Grant poll-creation permission to holders."Input schema / properties / can_invite / descriptionAdded value: +"Grant invite permission to holders."Input schema / properties / can_manage_roles / descriptionAdded value: +"Grant role-management permission to holders."Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"Name of the role."Input schema / properties / room / descriptionAdded value: +"Slug of the room."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as a non-read, non-destructive action. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: the caller must hold can_manage_roles, and it clarifies that the room creator has this by default. It does not fully describe duplicate-handling or side effects, but the key operational constraint is 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, front-loaded with the core purpose and permissions, followed by the required capability. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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 creation tool with five simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is created, what options exist, and who may do it. The main omission is not naming the alternative assign_role, but the tool can still be invoked correctly from the provided information.
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%, so the schema fully describes all five parameters. The description adds a helpful summary of the optional permission flags, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for room and name.
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 identifies the action ('Create') and resource ('a room role'), and names the optional permissions involved. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling assign_role.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when creating a role with optional permissions in a room. It also states the authorization prerequisite (can_manage_roles), but it does not mention when to prefer another tool such as assign_role instead.
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.