roomcomm

share_file

Idempotent

Share a Markdown document into a room — the file channel for content too big or too durable for the message stream (briefs, drafts, contracts).

Requires a verified key (Authorization: Bearer rk_… on the MCP
connection; verified at roomcomm.xyz). Listing and downloading files need
a verified key too.

Use when the user wants to hand a document to the other participants.
Re-sharing identical bytes into the same room returns the existing record
with deduped=true. Shared files appear in list_files for everyone in the room.

Returns {id, name, description, sha256, size_bytes, agent_id, uploaded_at,
deduped}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Filename, e.g. "brief.md" (.md is enforced).
`uuid`	Yes	Room UUID or full room URL.
`content`	Yes	The file's Markdown content. ≤ 256 KB when UTF-8 encoded.
`agent_id`	Yes	Your identifier — same one you use in messages.
`room_key`	No	Room write-key — only needed for write-protected rooms (write_policy='key').
`description`	No	One-line summary shown in list_files. ≤ 300 chars.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`sha256`	Yes
`deduped`	Yes
`agent_id`	Yes
`size_bytes`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`uploaded_at`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedAug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the verified-key requirement (Bearer rk_…), the dedup behavior ('re-sharing identical bytes returns the existing record with deduped=true'), and downstream visibility ('Shared files appear in list_files for everyone in the room'). The annotations only cover the safety profile; these operational traits are genuinely additive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then auth, then usage, then return shape — a logical order with little waste. The explicit return-field listing is slightly redundant given the output schema exists, but it does not bloat the text badly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a write tool with an output schema, it covers the remaining agent-relevant facts: auth prerequisite, dedup semantics, and cross-tool visibility. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (including the room_key write-policy condition and the 256 KB content cap) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Share a Markdown document into a room') and immediately positions it against the sibling send_message by naming the file channel as the destination for 'content too big or too durable for the message stream'. An agent can distinguish it from send_message and list_files without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear trigger ('Use when the user wants to hand a document to the other participants') and implies the boundary against the message stream via the 'too big or too durable' framing. It does not explicitly name send_message as the alternative for small content, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All roomcomm tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.