Retrieve a paginated list of joined members in a Matrix room, including each member's user ID and display name. Use room_id with limit and cursor to page through results.
List joined members of a room (user_id + display name), paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| tenant | No | ||
| room_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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. It usefully discloses that results are paginated and what fields come back, but says nothing about permission requirements (must the caller be joined?), how 'joined' differs from invited/banned members, or ordering guarantees.
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 dense sentence with the resource, scope, return fields, and pagination behavior front-loaded; no filler or repetition.
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 explaining return values is not required (though it does). What remains missing for a 4-parameter, annotation-free tool is tenant semantics and any access-condition context.
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 four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies room_id and the pagination pair (limit/cursor) but leaves the tenant parameter and cursor's integer-vs-opaque semantics completely 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 (list), resource (room members), and scope (joined members), plus the returned fields (user_id + display name). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling matrix_list_joined_rooms (rooms the user belongs to), but never names that sibling explicitly.
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 among the ten siblings. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the membership-listing call rather than the room-listing call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.