peerkith-mcp

room_post

Submit a complete room record via the /room endpoint by sending exactly five required fields—card, job, proof, incident, and cap—so older 0.4 configurations remain compatible.

Instructions

Alias of post (kept for 0.4 configs): POST /room, exactly five fields

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": {
      "card": "<card>",
      "job": "<job>",
      "proof": "<proof>",
      "incident": "<incident>",
      "cap": "<cap>"
    },
    "name": "room_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cap`	Yes
`job`	Yes
`card`	Yes
`proof`	Yes
`incident`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

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. POST implies a mutation, but the description does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, idempotency, response behavior, or what happens to existing data. It only adds the legacy-alias context, leaving most behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the alias/legacy relationship and route, though 'exactly five fields' is redundant with the schema and adds little value.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the tool has five required parameters with no descriptions. The definition does not explain parameter meanings, usage context, or behavioral effects, so it is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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?

There are five required parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description only says 'exactly five fields' and does not name or explain any of them, so it fails to compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter semantics.

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 identifies the route (POST /room) and says it is an alias of post, which gives some specific operation context. However, it does not explain what a room post is or what the tool actually accomplishes beyond being a legacy alias, so the purpose remains 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 Guidelines3/5

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

It says 'kept for 0.4 configs,' which implies when this legacy alias should be used and hints that the sibling post is the modern alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative directly, so guidance is implied rather than complete.

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

Deploy Server