List active rooms and their message counts to monitor ongoing chat activity.
List active rooms with message counts.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_rooms"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context like 'active' and 'with message counts,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it describe any permissions or limitations. This is adequate for a simple list tool but not fully transparent.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it ideal for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient but lacks details on what constitutes an 'active room' and what other fields might be returned beyond message counts. This leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent deciding whether this tool meets its needs.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain argument semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or redundant information about parameters.
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 clearly states the tool lists active rooms and includes message counts, using the specific verb 'list' with a defined scope. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_chats, which could be a potential source of confusion.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools such as list_chats or list_history, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.