방장이 방을 통째로 닫는다(방·초대코드·메시지 전부 파기).
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"room_id": "<room_id>",
"api_key": "<api_key>"
},
"name": "baton_close_room"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | 방장 계정 키 | |
| room_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals the destructive nature of the tool (destroys room, invite code, messages). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lacks details on prerequisites or side effects, but the core behavioral impact is clear.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and action. No unnecessary words.
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 (2 parameters, destructive action, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality and side effects. It could mention reversibility or confirmation needs, but is largely adequate.
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 schema has 2 parameters with 50% description coverage. The description adds context relating api_key to the host role, but does not elaborate on room_id. The description partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.
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 'close' and the resource 'room', and specifies that it destroys the room, invite code, and messages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like leave, kick, or create.
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 the tool is for the host to permanently close a room. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context of sibling tools provides guidance.
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.