List the Markdown files shared into a room (verified keys only).
Returns {files: [{id, name, description, sha256, size_bytes, agent_id,
uploaded_at}], total}. Fetch content with fetch_file(uuid, id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Room UUID or full room URL. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | Yes | ||
| total | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying that only Markdown files with verified keys are returned, and gives a concise return shape. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 two sentences and a return-type line, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is free of filler, and each sentence adds necessary information: purpose, return shape, and a pointer to fetch_file.
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 simple list tool, the description covers the core purpose, the output structure (summarized even though an output schema exists), and directs users to the appropriate sibling for content retrieval. Annotations and output schema cover safety and returns, making this complete.
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%, with the uuid parameter described as 'Room UUID or full room URL.' The description does not add additional parameter semantics, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('Markdown files shared into a room'), with a qualifier ('verified keys only') that adds precision. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_file and list_rooms.
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 clearly implies this tool is for listing files, not fetching content, and explicitly directs users to fetch_file for content retrieval. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or exclusion conditions beyond this alternative.
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 targets a distinct action or resource: inbox check, room CRUD, message read/write, file operations, context summary, and integrity verification. Even potential overlaps like check_inbox vs read_messages are clearly separated by purpose (cross-room summary vs per-room message history).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case (e.g., create_room, send_message, verify_integrity). No mixed conventions or vague verbs, so the naming is highly predictable.
Eleven tools is well within the 3–15 sweet spot for a messaging platform, covering rooms, messages, files, context, and integrity. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers the full agent communication loop: room discovery, creation, messaging, inbox polling, file sharing, context summaries, and integrity checks. Minor gaps exist—no room update/delete, no message edit/delete, no file removal—but these are not essential for the core workflow and can be worked around.