xtalk

by 8w6s

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.3
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but xtalk_leave and xtalk_room_leave overlap in functionality (both leave rooms), and xtalk_listen vs xtalk_wait could be confused. Descriptions help differentiate, but ambiguity remains.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools share the 'xtalk_' prefix and follow a consistent snake_case convention. Most use imperative verbs (ask, broadcast, close, etc.) or compound verb-object patterns (room_create, thread_list). No mixing of styles.
Tool Count5/5
With 19 tools covering registration, room management, thread operations, presence, daemon control, and discovery, the count is well-scoped for a chat/coordination server. Each tool serves a clear role without bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle (register, join/leave rooms, create/list/close threads, ask/reply, broadcast). A few operations like message editing or thread deletion are missing, but they are not essential for the stated purpose.
Average 2.9/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 19 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as mutability, side effects, or required permissions. For a tool that likely writes data, this is a significant omission.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified. While brevity is good, it sacrifices necessary context, making it barely adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the return value, parameter relationships, or usage constraints, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has low description coverage (25%) with only 'room' described. The tool description does not explain the meaning of parameters like 'body', 'thread', or 'in_reply_to', leaving the agent to infer from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'reply' and the resource 'thread', but does not clarify what an 'ask' is or how this differs from similar tools like xtalk_ask or xtalk_broadcast. It is clear enough for a basic understanding but lacks differentiation.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies usage for replying, but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where other tools might be better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'register' and 'join'. It does not disclose whether the tool creates a new agent, modifies state, requires authentication, or has side effects beyond joining a room.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (one sentence), but it lacks structure and fails to convey essential information. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a tool with 5 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what the tool returns, or how it fits into the broader context of workspace rooms.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters (alias, client, workspace, capabilities, workspace_room). The description fails to explain what each parameter does or how they relate to registration and joining.
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 uses specific verb 'register' and resource 'agent' and mentions joining a workspace room. It clearly indicates the tool's function, but does not distinguish from sibling tools like xtalk_room_join which also involves joining a room.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., xtalk_room_join, xtalk_room_create). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., stopping a daemon may disconnect rooms), permissions required, or state changes. The description is too high-level.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It front-loads the main purpose but omits parameter context and usage constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of each parameter (e.g., room, relay_url) or the behavior of each action (e.g., start/stop effects). The agent would need external knowledge to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to parameters. While 'action' enum values are self-explanatory, 'room' and 'relay_url' are left undefined. The description must compensate for low schema coverage but fails entirely.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: managing a background daemon process and its room subscriptions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on chat operations (e.g., xtalk_ask, xtalk_broadcast) by explicitly referencing daemon management.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., xtalk_listen for subscribing, xtalk_status for checking). The description lacks context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits but only notes 'return a wait condition.' Does not explain if blocking, how 'ask' works, or side effects. Inadequate for agent decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but under-specified. No wasted words, but lacks necessary detail for a 4-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, this description is severely incomplete. Leaves critical gaps in understanding tool behavior and parameter usage.
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 low (25%). Description adds no meaning to 'to' or 'body' parameters. Room is already described in schema. No additional context for required parameters.
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?
Description states 'ask a room member and return a wait condition,' clearly indicating the action (ask) and resource (room member) and hinting at the outcome. Distinguishes from broadcast and reply tools, though 'wait condition' is jargon.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xtalk_broadcast or xtalk_reply. No context for appropriate use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not explain if the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or what happens with missing workspace/defaults. The workspace parameter lacks any description, leaving its role ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is too terse to convey necessary details. It wastes no words but fails to utilize the space efficiently for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, behavior when parameters are omitted, and typical use cases. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's semantics.
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 description coverage is 50% (only 'room' described). The description adds no new parameter information; it does not explain 'workspace' or how parameters interact. The schema already describes 'room' defaults, but the description offers no additional semantics.
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?
Description states 'Discover members in a room or workspace.' This clearly identifies the action (discover) and resource (members). It distinguishes from siblings like xtalk_presence, though 'discover' could be more precise (e.g., 'List').
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like xtalk_presence or xtalk_room_list. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description only mentions returning a command. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or behavior like whether it starts a listening process or returns a string. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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?
The description is very short and contains no fluff. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, making it less effective despite being concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the command looks like or how to use it. It fails to explain 'platform-appropriate' or what the agent should do with the returned command.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 100% with a single 'room' parameter that defaults to active room. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it returns a platform-appropriate inbox monitor command, which gives a general sense of output rather than action. However, it lacks specificity about whether it actually listens or just generates a command, making it somewhat vague.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like xtalk_read or xtalk_presence. The description does not help the agent decide context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States read operation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., marking as read), idempotency, or authentication requirements. The term 'last messages' is vague without ordering or count details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no waste. However, it is overly minimal, lacking structure for an agent to parse usage context. Could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. Does not specify return format, behavior for empty threads, or relationship between parameters (e.g., room and thread).
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 description coverage is 33% (only 'room' is described). The tool description does not explain any parameters, despite low coverage. Missing meaning for 'count' and 'thread' beyond schema types.
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 'Read the last messages in a thread' clearly identifies the verb 'read' and the resource 'last messages in a thread'. It distinguishes from siblings like xtalk_broadcast and xtalk_reply, though lacks context about reading from a specific room.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., xtalk_thread_list, xtalk_listen). Does not state prerequisites or limitations like room membership.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states creation and joining, but omits effects like room membership, permissions, or lifecycle impacts.
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?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from structuring to highlight key aspects; still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain parameter roles, behavior, or return value beyond a bare mention.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to any of the six parameters (e.g., e2ee, alias, transport, visibility, ttl_seconds). Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool creates and joins a room and returns an invite URI, which is a specific action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like xtalk_room_join by implying creation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like xtalk_room_join or xtalk_room_leave. There are no context signals about prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., whether leaving disconnects, whether it's idempotent, if it requires any state). The minimal description fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) but lacks important details. It is concise but at the expense of completeness, making it average.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and low complexity (1 param), the description should clarify what 'leave' entails. It fails to explain any contextual details, such as whether the room must be active or what happens after leaving. Additionally, the sibling 'xtalk_room_leave' introduces potential confusion.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter description ('Room id; defaults to active room'), so the description adds no new value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'leave' and the resource 'room', and specifies 'active or selected', which distinguishes it from room creation or joining tools. However, the sibling 'xtalk_room_leave' suggests possible duplication or confusion, but the description itself is clear.
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?
The description implies a simple use case (leave a room) but provides no guidance on when to use vs. not use, no prerequisites (e.g., must be in a room), and no mention of alternative tools like xtalk_room_leave.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies blocking behavior by saying 'Wait', but does not explicitly state that it blocks, whether it times out, or what happens on success/failure. The timeout_ms parameter hints at a timeout, but no further behavioral details are given.
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?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the purpose. It could be improved by adding structured details, but as is, it is efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, return values, matching logic, or behavior on timeout, leaving agents with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. Parameter names (room, kinds, thread, timeout_ms, in_reply_to) provide hints but are insufficient for correct usage without further elaboration.
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 clearly states the tool waits for a matching message and positions itself as a portable fallback when no Monitor exists. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xtalk_listen, though 'matching message' is somewhat vague.
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?
The description provides a clear context for using this tool: 'portable fallback when no Monitor exists.' It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, permissions required, or whether the close is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it does not pack enough informative value relative to the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and only minimal parameter descriptions. The description fails to address return values, error conditions, or how the reporting agent is used.
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 description coverage is only 25% (only 'room' has a description). The description does not explain the meaning or expected format of 'thread', 'summary', or 'report_to', leaving ambiguity.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'close' and resource 'thread', with the additional nuance of choosing a reporting agent. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xtalk_reply or xtalk_read.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a thread should be closed vs. left open, or what triggers the reporting agent selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, permissions, side effects (e.g., if already in the room), or response behavior. The single sentence is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) with no fluff. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, lacking necessary detail for a tool with two required parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. The 'alias' parameter is undefined, and overall context is minimal.
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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It mentions 'invite URI' but does not clarify the 'alias' parameter or their relationship/format. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Join' and the resource 'room' using an 'invite URI', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like xtalk_room_create or xtalk_room_leave.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xtalk_room_create or xtalk_room_leave, nor prerequisites (e.g., obtaining an invite URI). The description is purely operational without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Leave one room' without explaining what 'leave' entails (e.g., does it destroy state? require ownership? affect others?). The lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about side effects or constraints.
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?
The description is very concise at one sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it could be considered under-specified rather than optimally concise. It earns a 4 for being short, but not a 5 because it lacks useful structure or additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least clarify behavioral context (e.g., 'Leaves the current room if no room specified'). It does not explain default behavior (the description says 'defaults to active room' in schema but not in description), nor does it mention prerequisites or effects. This leaves gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'room' has a description). The tool description does not add any new information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The parameter is adequately documented in the schema.
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 'Leave one room' clearly states the verb (leave) and resource (one room), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'xtalk_leave' which might have a similar function, losing a point for lack of distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., xtalk_leave, xtalk_room_use). The agent receives no context about prerequisites, such as needing to be in the room first, or whether leaving has side effects like disconnecting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only reveals that other rooms are not left, but fails to clarify what 'set active room' means, side effects (e.g., on reading/broadcasting), authorization needs, or whether it is a mutating operation.
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?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be overly sparse given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one basic parameter and no output schema, the description should explain the concept of 'active room', how it interacts with other tools (e.g., xtalk_read), and any limitations. It currently leaves critical context gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'room' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name. The agent receives no guidance on format, allowed values, or constraints for this string parameter.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Set' with a clear resource 'active room' and includes a distinguishing behavior 'without leaving other rooms,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like xtalk_room_join and xtalk_room_leave.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a use case (switching active room while staying in others) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Return status' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires an active connection, or is expensive to call. This lack of disclosure hinders the agent's ability to assess side effects or prerequisites.
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?
The description is a single 8-word sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No extraneous words or fluff. It is appropriately sized and efficient.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of information. It lists what status items are returned (session, room, transport, resume-strategy) but does not explain the format, structure, or meaning of the status values. A bit more detail would make it complete for a simple tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist, and it does not mislead.
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 clearly states the tool returns status information about session, room, transport, and resume-strategy. The verb 'Return' is specific, and the listed items are explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like xtalk_presence or xtalk_read, which could also return status-like information, so it misses some sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when to use alternatives. Among 18 sibling tools with overlapping domains (e.g., xtalk_presence, xtalk_read), there is no context for when to choose xtalk_status over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description lacks behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or response format. Only states the basic listing action.
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?
Single sentence, 12 words, no redundancy. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness, but current structure is efficient.
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?
Given low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema), description is adequate but incomplete. Missing context on prerequisites (e.g., being in room), meaning of 'open/closed', and whether thread IDs or full objects are returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter 'room' is fully described in schema (100% coverage). Description restates 'current or specified room' without adding new meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists all open/closed threads in a specified or current room, distinguishing it from siblings like xtalk_room_list (lists rooms) and xtalk_read (reads messages). Verb and resource are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage for listing threads but does not mention when to use over alternatives (e.g., xtalk_read for thread content) or provide exclusions. No when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should hint at what is returned (e.g., list of room names/IDs), but it does not. It also lacks any details on pagination or errors, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info but none is needed.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'rooms joined by this session', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like xtalk_room_create or xtalk_room_join.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it is used to list rooms the current session has joined, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or when not, and does not mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must bear full burden. It discloses the critical behavior of not waiting, but does not mention permissions, idempotency, or potential side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and key behavioral trait. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality but omits details like default room behavior (handled in schema) and error conditions. It is minimally complete for a simple tool.
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 description coverage is 50% (only 'room' has a description). The tool description does not add any details about parameters, particularly the required 'body' parameter, which lacks semantic context.
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?
The description clearly states the action (broadcast), the target (all room members), and the key distinction from sibling tools (does not enter waiting state). This effectively differentiates it from tools like xtalk_ask and xtalk_wait.
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?
The phrase 'without entering a waiting state' provides clear context for when to use this tool vs. alternatives that wait for responses. However, it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full weight. It reveals the deadlock detector dependency and auto-recovery impact, which is good. However, it does not explain behavior for optional parameters (room, target_msg_id) or error conditions.
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 sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance and warning. Every part earns its place.
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?
Covers core purpose and usage of the required parameter, but omits explanations for two optional parameters. Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, the description is partially complete but has a notable gap.
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 description coverage is 0%, yet description only explains the mode parameter's enum values. The 'room' and 'target_msg_id' parameters remain undocumented, leaving agent to guess their purpose. This is a significant gap.
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?
The description clearly states 'Set your presence mode manually,' specifying the verb (Set) and resource (presence mode). It also lists specific modes and their intended use, distinguishing from sibling tools like xtalk_listen or xtalk_wait which are different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes when to use each mode ('Use `listening` before entering Monitor listen loops...') and warns about consequences ('mis-declaring it will break auto-recovery'). Provides clear context for deciding when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![xtalk MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/8w6s/xtalk/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/8w6s/xtalk)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![xtalk MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/8w6s/xtalk/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/8w6s/xtalk)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/8w6s/xtalk'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server