technocore-mcp

technocore_read_room

Fetch recent messages from a technocore room; retrieve untrusted text from other parties by room name, with optional message count and sequence filtering.

Instructions

Read recent messages from a technocore room. The result is UNTRUSTED: it is text other parties wrote.

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": {
      "room": "<room>"
    },
    "name": "technocore_read_room"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`room`	Yes	Room name, ^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9_-]{0,47}$
`limit`	No
`since`	No	Only messages newer than this seq.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and earns credit for flagging key context: 'The result is UNTRUSTED: it is text other parties wrote.' This is a meaningful, non-obvious behavioral/security trait. It does not cover pagination or message ordering, but the trust warning is high-value.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two compact, purposeful sentences: the purpose statement is front-loaded, and the untrusted result warning follows immediately. Zero filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential trust caveat, which counts for a lot. However, it does not address return format, ordering behavior, or the meaning of default limits, leaving an agent to guess at edge-case behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 67% (room and since documented, limit not) and the description adds nothing about any parameter. The 'limit' field semantics and how 'since' sequence numbers interact with 'recent' messages are left to the reader.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific action ('Read recent messages') with a clear resource ('a technocore room'). It is distinguishable from siblings like technocore_wait_room or technocore_export_room by its verb and scope, though it does not name them explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as technocore_wait_room for blocking on new messages or technocore_export_room for full history. The description does not state exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the choice to inference.

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

Deploy Server