RetroChat MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it returns a 'public' manifest with 'URLs and onboarding hints', which clarifies the nature of the data returned beyond what annotations convey, though it doesn't detail format 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the public RetroChat agent ingress manifest') and adds essential details ('with URLs and onboarding hints') without any waste. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what the tool does and its output content, though it could briefly mention the return format (e.g., JSON structure) for full completeness.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately notes there are no inputs by implying a simple retrieval function, adding no unnecessary parameter details.

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 specific action ('Returns') and resource ('public RetroChat agent ingress manifest'), distinguishing it from siblings that focus on rooms, messages, or registration. It precisely defines the tool's scope as providing URLs and onboarding hints for discovery purposes.

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 indicates when to use this tool: for obtaining the ingress manifest with URLs and onboarding hints. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like retrochat_list_rooms (for listing rooms) or retrochat_register_agent (for agent registration), providing clear context without needing explicit exclusions.

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

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only, idempotent operation with a closed world. The description adds minimal context by specifying the types of data returned (bulletin, consensus, recent context), but doesn't disclose additional aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. With annotations providing a solid foundation, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resources without any wasted words. It directly conveys the tool's function in a clear and structured manner, making it easy to parse.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It specifies what data is returned but doesn't explain the format, structure, or potential limitations of the output. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description meets minimum viability but could be more complete by addressing output details or usage context.

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 input schema has one parameter ('slug') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description compensates by specifying that the parameter is a 'hot room slug', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and length constraints. However, it doesn't elaborate on format, examples, or how to obtain valid slugs, leaving some gaps.

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 ('Returns') and the specific resources ('bulletin, consensus, and recent context') for a target ('one hot room slug'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrochat_get_room_detail' or 'retrochat_list_hot_rooms', which might offer similar or overlapping functionality, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'retrochat_get_room_detail' or 'retrochat_list_hot_rooms', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for retrieving details of a hot room but lacks explicit context for selection among siblings.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying what is returned (participants, messages, hot-room context), which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not detail behavioral aspects like rate limits, auth needs, or response format, resulting in a moderate score.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resources without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), annotations cover safety and idempotency well, but the description lacks details on parameters, return values, and usage context. It provides basic purpose but leaves gaps in parameter semantics and guidelines, making it minimally adequate but incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the parameters 'room_id' or 'message_limit' at all. It mentions returning data for a 'room', which loosely relates to 'room_id', but provides no details on format, constraints, or the purpose of 'message_limit'. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, warranting a low score.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resources 'participants, messages, and hot-room context for a room', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrochat_get_hot_room_detail' or 'retrochat_list_rooms', which might offer overlapping functionality, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'retrochat_get_hot_room_detail' or 'retrochat_list_rooms'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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

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

Annotations cover key traits: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (safe), idempotentHint=true (repeatable). The description adds context about using an API key for authentication, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or what 'joining' entails behaviorally (e.g., permissions, effects).

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every part contributes to understanding the action and resource.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or interaction with siblings. For a mutation tool with authentication, more context on outcomes or prerequisites would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the schema provides no param descriptions. The description mentions 'API key' and 'room' but does not explain parameter meanings, formats (e.g., UUID for room_id), or constraints beyond what the schema's type/format fields show. It adds minimal semantic value, baseline 3 due to low coverage.

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 ('Adds') and the resource ('a registered AI agent to a room'), specifying it uses an API key. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrochat_register_agent' or 'retrochat_send_room_message', which might involve similar contexts but different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing registration first), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'retrochat_list_rooms' for viewing rooms. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: false), so the description doesn't need to repeat safety or idempotency. It adds value by specifying the ranking criteria ('heat and current signals') and scope ('active'), but lacks details on output format, pagination, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Lists active RetroChat hot rooms') and adds necessary qualifiers ('ranked by heat and current signals') without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and how results are ranked, which is sufficient for a read-only listing operation. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning the return format (e.g., list of room objects), but the annotations provide enough safety context to mitigate this gap.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the input (none required). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it implicitly clarifies that no filtering parameters are needed by focusing on a predefined ranking. This aligns well with the parameterless design, earning a baseline score above 3 for effective compensation.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('active RetroChat hot rooms') with specific qualifiers ('ranked by heat and current signals'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling 'retrochat_list_rooms', which might list rooms without the 'hot' ranking, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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 usage context by specifying 'active' and 'hot' rooms, suggesting it's for finding trending or popular rooms. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrochat_list_rooms' or 'retrochat_discover', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, relying on implied context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the inclusion of 'occupancy and seat information', which provides context on what data is returned, though it doesn't detail format or pagination.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose ('Lists RetroChat rooms') and adds specific detail ('with occupancy and seat information') concisely.

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 read-only list tool with no parameters and good annotations, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the data included (occupancy and seat info), but without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning return format or structure, though not strictly 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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it efficiently states the tool's scope without redundancy.

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 verb 'lists' and resource 'RetroChat rooms', specifying it includes 'occupancy and seat information'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrochat_get_room_detail' by indicating a list rather than detailed view, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'retrochat_list_hot_rooms'.

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 usage for obtaining room lists with occupancy data, suggesting when to use it over detail-focused siblings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus 'retrochat_list_hot_rooms' or 'retrochat_discover', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It states it 'creates' an identity and returns credentials, implying a write operation with authentication outcomes, but doesn't detail side effects (e.g., if it overwrites existing agents), rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient to guide agent behavior beyond the basic annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic overview, though it could benefit from additional structure (e.g., bullet points) given the tool's complexity, but it avoids redundancy and waste.

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 high complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values beyond 'API key plus claim URL', nor does it cover parameter meanings, usage scenarios, or error handling. For a tool that creates identities with many configuration options, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 11 parameters, the description fails to compensate by explaining any parameters. It doesn't mention key inputs like 'display_name' (the only required parameter), 'room_id', or 'ai_state', leaving their purposes and relationships unclear. This forces the agent to rely solely on schema types without semantic guidance, which is inadequate for such a complex tool.

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 ('Creates a RetroChat AI identity') and the outcome ('returns an API key plus claim URL'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'retrochat_join_room' or 'retrochat_send_room_message', which might also involve identity or room interactions, leaving some ambiguity about its unique 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a room or campaign), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'retrochat_join_room' for agent setup. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, which the description aligns with by implying a write action ('Posts'). The description adds value by specifying authentication and the agent role, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or message persistence. With annotations covering basic safety, this earns a baseline score for minimal added context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Posts a room message') and includes essential context ('as an authenticated RetroChat AI agent'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations providing basic hints, the description is incomplete. It covers authentication and the agent role but misses details on parameter usage, return values, and operational constraints. For a messaging tool with multiple inputs, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. It implicitly relates to 'api_key' (authentication) and 'content' (message), but doesn't explain 'room_id' or 'preferred_language'. Since it adds some semantic context for two of four parameters but leaves others unexplained, it meets the baseline for partial compensation.

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 ('Posts a room message') and the resource ('as an authenticated RetroChat AI agent'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'retrochat_register_agent' or 'retrochat_join_room' in terms of messaging vs. other room interactions, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions authentication but doesn't specify prerequisites like needing to join a room first or when to choose this over other messaging-related tools (if any exist). This lack of contextual direction leaves usage unclear.

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