Retrieve messages from a Quorus room's history by keyword, sender, or message type to find past discussions and context.
Search room history by keyword (q), sender, or message_type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| sender | No | ||
| room_id | Yes | ||
| message_type | 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. 'Search' implies a read, but it never states that explicitly, nor does it disclose pagination behavior, what the default limit=50 means, or how results are ordered. A read operation with no safety annotations needs at least this much disclosure, and it is absent.
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 that identifies the action, the resource, and the filters with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly what leaves usage and parameter gaps.
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. However, for a five-parameter search tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the missing limit/pagination semantics and any filtering-combination behavior (AND vs OR) leave it only minimally complete.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains q as a keyword and identifies sender and message_type as filters, which is partial value, but it says nothing about limit or the required room_id, leaving two of five parameters undocumented anywhere.
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 (Search) and resource (room history) with the search dimensions named. It is distinguishable from list_rooms and get_room_state by the 'history' scope, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the tool for querying past messages rather than current room state, and nothing tells it when a plain list_rooms or get_room_state call would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.