Room MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: create-room-as-host initiates a room as host, join-with-invite joins as a participant, send-message sends a message, wait-for-room-response waits for incoming messages, and exit-room cleans up resources. The descriptions clearly differentiate these functions, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming is mixed but readable: create-room-as-host and join-with-invite use hyphens and descriptive phrases, while exit-room, send-message, and wait-for-room-response follow a simpler verb-noun pattern with hyphens. This inconsistency in structure (e.g., longer vs. shorter names) reduces predictability, but the names remain understandable.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the count is well-scoped for a room management server, covering core operations like creating, joining, messaging, waiting, and exiting. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or insufficient, aligning with typical server scopes of 3-15 tools.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for basic room interactions, including creation, joining, messaging, and cleanup. A minor gap exists in lacking tools for managing room settings or listing active rooms, but agents can work around this with the available tools, and core workflows are fully supported.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions waiting for a message or notification if the other party left, but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether this is a blocking call, timeout behavior, error handling, or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves asynchronous events.
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 concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating the two outcomes (message arrival vs. party leaving) for clarity, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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 complexity of a waiting/notification tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or how the tool interacts with the room state, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer behavior.
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 input schema has one parameter 'roomId' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'roomId' is, how to obtain it, or its format. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, but since there's only one parameter, it's minimally viable.
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 tool 'wait for a message to arrive in the room, or be notified if the other party left', which specifies the verb ('wait for') and resource ('room'), but it's vague about the exact behavior—does it block until an event occurs, or return immediately? It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send-message' or 'join-with-invite' in terms of when to use this specific waiting action.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage in a room context but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., must be in a room first) or compare to other tools like 'send-message' for active communication. This leaves the agent without clear direction on optimal 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('join') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only or mutating operation (likely mutating), what happens on success (e.g., access granted, role assigned), error conditions (e.g., invalid code, full room), or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation tool.
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 extremely concise with a single, direct sentence: 'join a room with an invite code'. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses no unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the verb, target, and mechanism.
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 likely performs a mutation (joining a room) with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on outcomes, errors, prerequisites, and behavioral details. For a tool that changes state, this minimal description is inadequate to guide an agent effectively.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'invite code' which relates to the 'invite' parameter, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's type definition. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's format, source, or constraints (e.g., length, expiration), leaving significant gaps. With one undocumented parameter, this adds only marginal value.
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 action ('join') and target resource ('a room') using the mechanism 'with an invite code'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-room-as-host' (creation vs joining) and 'exit-room' (joining vs leaving). However, it doesn't specify what 'join' entails (e.g., becoming a participant, gaining access) beyond the basic verb.
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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an invite code), when not to use it (e.g., if already in the room), or compare it to siblings like 'create-room-as-host' for when you should create instead of join. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
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 the full burden. It mentions 'clean up resources' which hints at resource management, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, what happens to other users in the room, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured by separating purpose from behavioral details.
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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details like return values, error handling, and full behavioral context, making it inadequate for safe use.
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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies 'roomId' is used to identify the room to exit, but doesn't specify format, constraints, or examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.
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 action ('exit') and resource ('a room'), and mentions 'clean up resources' which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'join-with-invite' or 'wait-for-room-response' in terms of purpose.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be in a room), exclusions, or suggest other tools for related actions, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully describes key behavioral traits: the synchronous nature ('automatically wait for the response'), error handling ('inform if the peer has left'), and that it's a communication action rather than a read operation. It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific response format to expect.
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 extremely concise at just two clauses, with zero wasted words. The first clause states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context about waiting and error conditions. Every element earns its place, making it efficiently front-loaded with essential information.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for a 2-parameter tool, the description provides adequate basic purpose and behavioral context but leaves significant gaps. It explains what the tool does and its synchronous nature but doesn't document parameters, return values, error conditions beyond peer absence, or integration with sibling tools. For a messaging tool in a room system, this is minimally viable but incomplete.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about what 'roomId' represents (format, how to obtain it) or what 'message' should contain (content type, length limits). For a tool with 2 required parameters and zero schema documentation, this is a significant gap that the description fails to address.
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 action ('send a message') and target ('to a room'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create-room-as-host' or 'exit-room' by focusing on messaging rather than room management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential messaging alternatives that might exist in the broader system.
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 usage context by mentioning 'wait for the response' and 'peer has left', suggesting this is for synchronous communication in active rooms. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'wait-for-room-response', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing to be in a room first or having proper permissions.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a room, sets a host message, returns an invite code, and requires a follow-up call to 'wait-for-room-response'. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the room creation fails, leaving behavioral gaps.
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 front-loaded with the main action but includes verbose instructions like 'must be clearly given to the user so they can copy it', which could be more concise. Some sentences (e.g., about user direction) are redundant with parameter context, reducing efficiency.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage flow, and output (invite code), but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools beyond 'wait-for-room-response'.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'hostFirstMessage' with its description. The description adds context by explaining that this message is 'the first message that will be sent as the host' and is based on 'user directive', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond 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 clearly states the action ('create a room, and be the host') and resource ('room'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'join-with-invite' or 'exit-room'. However, it doesn't specify what type of room (e.g., chat, meeting) or platform, making it slightly less specific than a perfect score.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'after calling this, please immediately call the wait-for-room-response tool'. It also implies usage context by mentioning 'The user should provide clear direction for the objective of the room', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'join-with-invite'.
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:

[![room-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/agree-able/room-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/agree-able/room-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![room-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/agree-able/room-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/agree-able/room-mcp)

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/agree-able/room-mcp'

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