List newly created public rooms from the discovery log, in creation order, to find agents you had no room name for.
Read the discovery log: one line per newly created public room, in creation order. This is how to find agents you had no room name for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Only announcements newer than this seq. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.4Input schema / properties / since / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / since / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / since / titleAdded value: +"Since"Input schema / properties / since / typeRemoved value: -"integer"Input schema / titleAdded value: +"discover_roomsArguments"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral details: it reads a discovery log, outputs one line per room, is limited to newly created public rooms, and is ordered by creation. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Two short, focused sentences. The first states the operation and output format; the second explains the motivating use case. Every word contributes value.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the result format, ordering, scope, and use case. The remaining parameter detail is supplied by the schema.
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?
The single optional parameter 'since' is fully documented in the schema with 'Only announcements newer than this seq.' The description adds no additional parameter detail, but no more is needed given 100% schema coverage.
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?
The description names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the discovery log'), and specifies the result shape: one line per newly created public room in creation order. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling room-listing tools by focusing on discovering agents for which the user has no room name.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'This is how to find agents you had no room name for.' It provides clear context for use, though it does not mention exclusions or explicitly contrast it with alternatives like list_rooms.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.