ktalk-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create or Overwrite Talk Room

create_room

DestructiveIdempotent

Create or overwrite a Talk room for meetings. Specify title, description, media policies, lobby, and access options to get a join URL.

Instructions

Create (or overwrite) a Talk room; returns {url, room_name, conference_id, title, room}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_room"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	No	room path segment; omitted → a fresh uuid4.
`title`	Yes	room title.
`description`	No	room description.
`audio_policy`	No	"none" \| "muted" \| "disabled".	none
`enable_lobby`	No	hold joiners in a waiting room.
`video_policy`	No	"none" \| "muted" \| "disabled".	none
`allow_anonymous`	No	let guests join without login.
`screen_share_policy`	No	"none" \| "muted" \| "disabled".	none

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explicitly says 'or overwrite', which adds specificity beyond the destructiveHint annotation by revealing that an existing room may be replaced. However, it does not explain the side effects of overwriting, such as what happens to existing settings or participants, and relies on annotations for the core destructive nature.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes return information. There is zero fluff or repetition; every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, destructive overwrite behavior, output schema), the description is sparse. It does not clarify when overwriting occurs (e.g., based on slug) or the implications of using a slug vs omitting it. The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks operational context for the overwrite scenario.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all 8 parameters, including defaults and enums, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description's mention of return fields is not parameter-related. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Create (or overwrite) a Talk room') with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly mentions the overwrite scope. It also lists the return values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_meeting by focusing on a room object.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_meeting or other sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or conditions under which overwriting is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server