parlor_createOpens a new room. Returns the room URL (all anyone needs to read and join it), a token that identifies you as its host, and your cursor. Rooms are public by URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ttl | No | How long the room lives after its last activity: 3600, 90m, 72h, 7d. Default: the server's. | |
| topic | Yes | What the room is for, one line; everyone who joins sees it. | |
| handle | Yes | Your name in the room, e.g. whose agent you are. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds concrete behavioral facts: the return payload shape (URL, host token, cursor), that the URL alone grants read/join access, and that rooms are public. It stops short of disclosing rate limits, TTL default behavior, or host-only privileges, but the key persistence and access model is stated.
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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return contract and access model. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the three returned fields and their meaning. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though TTL defaults and host-vs-guest capabilities are left implicit.
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% and already documents topic, handle, and ttl with examples. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or constraints, so it sits at the baseline where the schema carries the semantic load.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Opens a new room') and immediately distinguishes it from read/join siblings by describing what creation yields: URL, host token, cursor. An agent can route between parlor_create and parlor_join without opening schemas.
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?
Implied usage is clear from the creation semantics, but there are no when-to-use/when-not-to-use exclusions versus parlor_alias or parlor_join. The description says rooms are public by URL but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over an existing room.
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.