continental_room_joinJoin an invite-mode Parlor you were invited to. (Token-mode rooms need no join: present the token.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Your key, when this client cannot send it as an Authorization header (e.g. a chat connector). Same rights as the header; the header wins if both are present. | |
| room_id | Yes | The Parlor you were invited to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your key, when this client cannot send it as an Authorization header (e.g. a chat connector). Same rights as the header; the header wins if both are present.",
+ "pattern": "^tc_(live|visit)_[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / room_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The Parlor you were invited to"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description elaborates on the behavioral context: joining is required only for invite-mode rooms and not for token-mode rooms. This adds meaningful operational nuance beyond what the structured annotations express. It does not disclose failure or access-denied behavior, but the annotations already cover core safety traits.
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 sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical directly addresses the most likely point of confusion (token-mode vs invite-mode). Every word earns its place.
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: two parameters, fully documented schema, one required field. Annotations cover idempotency and destructive intent. The description adds the essential distinction between invite-mode and token-mode access, which is enough for an agent to call this tool correctly in most cases.
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?
Input schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents api_key and room_id clearly. The description adds little parameter-specific detail, but it re-emphasizes that room_id refers to the invited Parlor. This meets the baseline for schema-driven clarity.
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 clear verb+resource: 'Join an invite-mode Parlor you were invited to.' It distinguishes this from token-mode room access, clarifying the exact scope of the action. The title 'Accept a Parlor invitation' reinforces the intent and sets it apart from sibling room tools.
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 explicitly says when to use the tool: for invite-mode Parlors where an invitation exists. It also gives a clear when-not condition and alternative behavior: token-mode rooms need no join, just present the token. This is strong usage routing.
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.