Create a new public or private channel in a Pumble workspace, defaulting to public unless private is explicitly requested.
Create a new public or private channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the new channel. If not provided, MUST ASK. DO NOT GUESS. | |
| type | No | The type of the channel (PUBLIC or PRIVATE). Defaults to PUBLIC unless private is explicitly requested. | PUBLIC |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only says what is created. It does not disclose whether the creator is automatically added, whether private channels require inviting members, what happens on a duplicate name, or whether the operation is reversible.
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 with no filler; the channel-type distinction is placed where it will be read first. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so the brevity is efficient but leaves gaps rather than wasting words.
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 two-parameter create tool with a fully described schema, the essentials are covered. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should still state the permission/membership consequences and what the call returns (e.g., the new channel id), which it omits entirely.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters and the PUBLIC/PRIVATE enum are already documented in the schema, and the guardrail against guessing a name lives there too. The description only restates the enum in prose ("public or private"), adding no formatting, length, or uniqueness constraints beyond the schema.
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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ("Create a new ... channel") and adds the public/private scope, which is enough to distinguish it from every sibling (all of which are read, send, edit, react, or membership tools). It stops short of naming any sibling, but none is a plausible substitute.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb – an agent can infer this is the tool for provisioning a channel rather than joining or messaging in one. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no note on prerequisites such as existing membership or naming conflicts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.