continental_room_statusTime remaining, entry/byte counts, member count. No content.
| 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 room |
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 room"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those by enumerating the actual response facets (time remaining, entry/byte counts, member count) and explicitly excluding content. This is meaningful context, especially since there is no output schema to convey return shape.
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 extremely compact: every phrase carries information, and the clarifying 'No content' earns its place. It is front-loaded with the most useful output information and contains 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 low-complexity, read-only status tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the output fields and states the key exclusion. Minor ambiguities remain around what 'time remaining' counts down to and the units of 'entry/byte counts', but these are not blockers for invocation.
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%, with both api_key and room_id already documented. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 identifies what the tool returns: time remaining, entry/byte counts, and member count for a room. The explicit 'No content' helps distinguish it from content-read tools like room_read, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative. No verb is present, but the resource and data scope are evident.
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 implies this is the tool for room status metrics, and the 'No content' clause signals it is not for reading message content. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over a sibling or name an alternative, leaving much of the routing decision 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.