Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

PingRoom

by io.pingroom
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Who's On It

live_claim
DestructiveIdempotent

Act on a "Who's on it?" request (a live_status stream with template "claim") as your human: "claim" takes an open request (anyone but its asker), "release" lets go of one you hold, "done" finishes it (its claimer, or its asker at any time) and "cancel" withdraws it (its asker, or a room owner or admin). Two claims at once have one winner: the other gets 409 claim_conflict with the current claim, naming who holds it. Repeating your own last action is a no-op that returns the same claim.

Tool call template

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": {
      "invite_code": "<invite_code>",
      "notification_id": "<notification_id>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "live_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesWhat to do with the request.
invite_codeYesRoom invite code.
notification_idYesThe request's notification id, from list_notifications or the live_status response.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYesPurpose-built PingRoom result with credential and account fields removed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the 409 claim_conflict outcome with the current holder named, and that repeating your own last action is a no-op returning the same claim. These concurrency and idempotency details are exactly what an agent needs and are not derivable from the destructive/idempotent hints alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the resource and then enumerates actions; every clause carries information. Slightly packed, but no filler sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still covers conflict handling, idempotency, and per-action authorization. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the action enum by explaining the permission model behind each value and clarifies notification_id's provenance. It stops short of documenting invite_code semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb set (claim/release/done/cancel) acting on a named resource ('Who's on it?' request, a live_status stream with template 'claim'). An agent can distinguish this from get_live_status or list_notifications without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit per-action conditions: claim takes an open request from anyone but its asker, done is for the claimer or asker, cancel is for the asker or a room owner/admin. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g. get_live_status to observe vs this to act), so it falls short of a 5.

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

All PingRoom toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources