JoinCloud

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.2.3
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: createRoom, joinRoom, leaveRoom, listRooms, messageHistory, roomInfo, and sendMessage all target specific actions in the collaboration room lifecycle. An agent can easily differentiate between them, such as distinguishing joinRoom (for entering) from sendMessage (for communicating).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using camelCase, such as createRoom, joinRoom, and sendMessage. This uniformity makes the set predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention across the tools.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its collaboration room domain, covering essential operations like creation, joining, messaging, and management. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or sparse, providing a balanced set for typical agent workflows.
Completeness4/5
The tool set offers strong coverage for core collaboration room operations, including CRUD-like actions (create, join, leave, list, info) and messaging (send, history). A minor gap exists in room modification tools, such as updating room settings or deleting rooms, but agents can still handle most workflows effectively.
Average 3.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on March 26, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
View related servers

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data fields are returned (name, participants, settings), compensating for the lack of an output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, efficient sentence of seven words. Front-loaded with action verb 'Get' and every word contributes meaningful information about the operation or return value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only lookup tool with one parameter and good safety annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It compensates for missing output schema by detailing the returned fields, though explicitly stating this operates on a specific room identifier would strengthen it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the roomId parameter fully described as 'Room name' in the schema. The description does not mention parameters, but with complete schema coverage, this meets the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb 'Get' and resource 'room details', and lists returned fields (name, participants, settings). However, it doesn't explicitly clarify this retrieves a single specific room versus the sibling 'listRooms' which presumably returns multiple rooms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listRooms' or 'messageHistory', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a roomId from listRooms first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the mutation profile (readOnly: false, destructive: false). The description adds useful context about the return value (room ID) not present in annotations, but does not elaborate on persistence, visibility, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action, the second states the return value. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool, the description is sufficient. It compensates for the missing output schema by explicitly documenting the return value (room ID), though it could optionally note that all parameters are optional.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('collaboration room'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like joinRoom, leaveRoom, and listRooms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a workflow by stating the return value is 'for joining,' hinting at coordination with joinRoom, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or contrasts with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the 'Sorted alphabetically' behavioral trait not captured elsewhere. However, it omits pagination behavior details (beyond schema definitions) and return value structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose, the second adds critical behavioral context (sorting). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with complete schema coverage and good annotations, the description is adequate. Minor gap: lacking description of return value structure given the absence of an output schema, though 'List public rooms' implies a collection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the search, limit, and offset parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, meeting the baseline expectation when the schema carries the descriptive burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with clear resource ('public rooms') and scope ('on the server'). The term 'List' effectively distinguishes this read operation from action-oriented siblings like createRoom, joinRoom, and sendMessage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The verb 'List' provides implied usage distinct from the action verbs of siblings (create/join/leave), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus roomInfo (which likely retrieves specific room details) or how to handle pagination in practice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description adds valuable pagination constraints (default 20, max 100) not in annotations, but omits error behaviors (e.g., invalid room) and return structure details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 12 words with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb ('Get'), immediately followed by resource and constraints. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a low-complexity tool with 2 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and clear annotations. Description covers the essential behavioral constraints (pagination limits) and resource scope without requiring output schema documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description reinforces the limit constraints but duplicates schema information for that parameter. Does not add semantic context for 'offset' parameter beyond what schema provides, though 'from the room' implies the context for both parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'message history' and scope 'from the room', clearly distinguishing it from sibling sendMessage (write) and roomInfo (metadata). The parenthetical constraint '(default last 20, max 100)' further clarifies the retrieval scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage through the verb 'Get' (retrieval vs sending), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. Does not clarify when to use this vs roomInfo or how it relates to pagination workflows with offset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. Description adds critical behavioral context not in annotations: the functional dependency on joinRoom. Does not disclose rate limits, error behaviors, or delivery guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: purpose front-loaded, prerequisite follows. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers prerequisites and modes for a 2-parameter send operation. Lacks output expectations or error conditions, but given clear annotations and simple schema, description meets essential needs without significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage ('Message text', 'DM target agent name'). Description provides high-level context '(broadcast or DM)' mapping to the 'to' parameter without redundancy. Baseline 3 appropriate given schema completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Send' with resource 'message' and clear scope distinction '(broadcast or DM)'. Effectively distinguishes from sibling messageHistory (read) and room management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states prerequisite 'Must call joinRoom first', establishing correct sequence with sibling tool joinRoom. Implies when-not-to-use (before joining), though could more explicitly frame joinRoom as the required preceding step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), description adds critical behavioral details: the return of an 'agentToken' for stateful subsequent calls and that 'new messages are delivered as notifications', explaining the delivery mechanism not covered by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with zero waste: purpose declaration, return value/workflow implication, and notification behavior. Each sentence delivers distinct value regarding functionality, output, and side effects.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking an output schema, description compensates by documenting the critical return value (agentToken) and notification behavior. Combined with complete input schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the structured fields adequately document parameters (roomId syntax, agentName purpose, password optionality). Description provides no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Join' with resource 'room' and explicitly qualifies it as 'existing room', clearly distinguishing it from sibling createRoom. The scope is precisely defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context that this is for 'existing' rooms (implied alternative: createRoom) and states it 'Returns an agentToken for subsequent calls', indicating prerequisite status for tools like sendMessage. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what gets destroyed/released: 'your agent name'. This explains the specific side effect beyond the generic annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient 9-word sentence that front-loads the action. There is no redundancy or wasted text; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (no parameters) and presence of annotations covering safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It could benefit from noting error conditions (e.g., leaving when not in a room) or return value details, but covers the core operation adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. With no parameters to describe, the description appropriately focuses on the operation's effect rather than inventing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Leave') with clear resource ('room') and adds the side effect ('release your agent name'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like joinRoom, createRoom, and sendMessage by indicating this is an exit/disconnect action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Leave the current room' implies this should be used when exiting a room, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, comparison to joinRoom, or mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be in a room first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![join.cloud MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kushneryk/join.cloud/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kushneryk/join.cloud)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![join.cloud MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kushneryk/join.cloud/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kushneryk/join.cloud)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kushneryk/join.cloud'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server