Creates a recording room with guest and producer /rec/ links. Use it to start podcast recording sessions with separate participant access.
Mint a recording room: guest + producer /rec/ links (design: docs/recording-session.md).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expires_at | No | ||
| project_path | No | ||
| public_base_url | No | http://127.0.0.1:8765 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers little. It implies creation and link generation, but says nothing about room lifetime, expiry behavior (despite an expires_at parameter), auth requirements, or what revoking/reuse looks like. The docs/recording-session.md pointer is a weak mitigation.
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 leads with the verb and object, with no padded prose. The trailing documentation pointer is somewhat dangling but does not bloat the text.
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?
Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), a creation tool with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation should convey lifecycle, expiry, and auth context. Those gaps leave the definition inadequate for correct invocation.
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, but it fails to explain any of the three parameters (expires_at, project_path, public_base_url). The phrase "guest + producer /rec/ links" only vaguely gestures at the URL parameter and clarifies nothing about the others.
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 ("Mint") and resource ("recording room") and names the concrete output ("guest + producer /rec/ links"), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling revoke_record_room_tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. An agent must infer that a room should be minted before recording, and it is not told how this relates to revoke_record_room_tool or record_start_tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.