지속되는 팀 방을 만든다. 반환: room_id(방장이 보관·관리용) + invite_code(공유용, 72h 만료). alias를 주면 방장이 자동 입장. require_approval을 켜면 입장에 방장 승인 필요.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | 방 이름 | |
| alias | No | 방장 별명(주면 자동 입장) | |
| api_key | No | 방장 계정 키 — 방 관리(초대발급·kick·승인) 권한. Authorization 헤더로도 자동 첨부 | |
| require_approval | No | true=입장에 방장 승인 필요 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / alias / descriptionPrevious value: -"내 별명 — 주면 방 생성과 동시에 자동 입장"New value: +"방장 별명(주면 자동 입장)"Input schema / properties / api_key / descriptionPrevious value: -"계정 키(방 한도·시트 적용). Authorization 헤더로도 자동 첨부"New value: +"방장 계정 키 — 방 관리(초대발급·kick·승인) 권한. Authorization 헤더로도 자동 첨부"Input schema / properties / require_approvalAdded value: +{
+ "description": "true=입장에 방장 승인 필요",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / ttl_hoursRemoved value: -{
- "description": "만료(기본 72h)",
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / properties / api_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "계정 키(방 한도·시트 적용). Authorization 헤더로도 자동 첨부",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses persistence, return values (room_id, invite_code with 72h expiry), effects of alias (auto-enter) and require_approval (host approval). Could add authentication details beyond param description.
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?
Three concise sentences in Korean, front-loaded with the main action and return. Every sentence provides essential information without 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?
Covers creation, return values, key options. No output schema needed. Could mention success/failure cases but adequate for the complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining behavior of alias (auto-enter) and require_approval (host approval), which go beyond schema descriptions.
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 'creates' and resource 'persistent team room', lists return values (room_id, invite_code), and distinguishes from siblings like baton_join, baton_close_room.
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?
Implies when to use (to create a room) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or comparison with similar tools.
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.