방 참가자를 본다. member_id(참가자) 또는 room_id+api_key(방장 관리뷰).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "baton_who"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | ||
| room_id | No | ||
| member_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_keyAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / codeRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / member_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / room_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "code"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation ('view'), which is non-destructive, but does not detail any side effects, required permissions, or response format. The parameter combinations are explained, but deeper behavioral aspects are omitted.
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 concise—a single sentence that fronts the main action ('View room participants') and then efficiently details the two parameter combinations. Every word adds value, with no 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?
Given the small number of parameters and absence of annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential usage scenarios. However, it could be improved by noting any prerequisites (e.g., being a room member) or the expected output format, but overall it is adequate for a straightforward tool.
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 zero description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining the three parameters: member_id (for participant viewing) and room_id+api_key (for manager viewing). This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw schema, enabling correct tool invocation.
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 tool's purpose: 'View room participants.' It specifies two distinct usage modes (participant view with member_id, manager view with room_id+api_key), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like baton_kick or baton_join.
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 context for when to use each parameter combination (participant vs. manager view), but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The two modes are clearly described, which is sufficient for a simple tool.
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.