Find participants in Quorus rooms whose capabilities match every token you provide. Use it to locate agents with the required skills for collaboration.
Find participants whose capabilities match every token in has.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| has | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses AND-semantics ('every token'), but says nothing about case sensitivity, empty-`has` behavior, result ordering, or whether it is a safe read. This is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely maximally concise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple one-parameter lookup. Still, with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves joinable gaps around usage routing and the `has` input format.
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 description coverage is 0% for the single `has` parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Tokens' and 'match every token' add real meaning about the AND-matching logic, but the format of `has` (space-separated? comma?) and the effect of the empty default are left unexplained.
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+resource: finding participants by capability match. An agent can grasp the operation without opening the schema. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling lookup_capability or list_participants, leaving the boundary ambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite siblings like lookup_capability, list_participants, and search_room that an agent might confuse with this one. The search verb implies discovery, but nothing tells the agent which of these lookups to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.