Quorus

Official

by Quorus-dev

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

register_tool

Instructions

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_id": "<room_id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "register_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`url`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`access`	No	room
`room_id`	Yes
`description`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.2Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the admin authorization requirement. However, it says nothing about what happens if the server is already registered, whether registration is idempotent, or any side effects of the mutation.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably under-sized for a 5-parameter mutation, but there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations, 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and a non-obvious access parameter defaulting to "room", the description is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only "in the room" loosely hints at room_id; name, url, the access default of "room", and description are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (register) and resource (an MCP server in a room), which is unambiguous and naturally distinguishes it from the sibling unregister_tool. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Room admin only" gives a real precondition, which is more than nothing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no pointer to alternatives such as unregister_tool or list_room_tools. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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