Create a brand-new instant LIQAA video meeting and return shareable join links. End-to-end encrypted, runs in the browser, no install and no account needed. Anyone with the guest link joins with one click. Up to 25 participants on an instant room.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | Optional display title for the meeting. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: end-to-end encryption, browser-based, no install/account, up to 25 participants. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint false indicates mutation, which matches create action).
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?
Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the primary action and key benefits. No wasted 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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers creation, security, requirements, participant limit, and return values. No gaps for the agent to act.
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 covers the single optional parameter fully (100% coverage). Description adds no extra parameter details but mentions output (links), which is reasonable for a simple tool. 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 states the tool creates a new instant LIQAA video meeting and returns shareable join links. It distinguishes from siblings (list_plans, platform_capacity, platform_stats) which are about listing or statistics.
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 usage for quick meetings with no installation or account needed, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. Siblings are unrelated, so context is clear.
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.
Each tool serves a clear, non-overlapping purpose: creating a room, listing plans, and providing platform capacity and usage statistics. There is no ambiguity in their roles.
Two tools follow a verb_noun pattern (create_instant_room, list_plans), but the other two use a noun_verb style (platform_capacity, platform_stats). This mix of conventions reduces consistency.
Four tools feel appropriate for a focused meetings server that emphasizes instant rooms and informational queries. The count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming for the scope.
The set covers room creation and basic informational needs, but lacks operations like joining, listing, or managing rooms, leaving gaps for a full meeting lifecycle.
