Mnemoverse Memory

memory_join_room

Idempotent

Join a shared memory room with an mnvr_ invite code to obtain its address and membership scope for reading or writing shared memories.

Instructions

Join a shared memory room using an invite code (starts with 'mnvr_'). Use when the user pastes an invite code or says something like 'join room with code ...'. The result gives the room's address, which is the domain for reading the shared room with memory_read, and tells you what you may do with it: memory_write to that address is only allowed when your membership scope is read_write; a read-only membership has that write refused; and when the server does not report a scope, whether memory_write would succeed is stated as unknown rather than promised either way.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	The invite code (mnvr_...).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	The room name.
`scope`	No	Your role in the room ('read' \| 'read_write').
`address`	Yes	Domain address (xroom:<id>); pass as `domain` on read/write.
`room_id`	Yes	The room's id (room_...).
`next_steps`	Yes	How to use the room now.
`already_member`	No	True if you were already a member (no-op join).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.11.0Sep 23, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "address": {
+      "description": "Domain address (xroom:<id>); pass as `domain` on read/write.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "already_member": {
+      "description": "True if you were already a member (no-op join).",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "The room name.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "next_steps": {
+      "description": "How to use the room now.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "room_id": {
+      "description": "The room's id (room_...).",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scope": {
+      "description": "Your role in the room ('read' | 'read_write').",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "room_id",
+    "address",
+    "next_steps"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.5.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive flags; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the result yields the room's address used as `domain`, and it explains that memory_write succeeds only with read_write scope, is refused for read-only membership, and is reported as unknown when the server gives no scope. This is honest, non-contradictory disclosure that an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and trigger are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. The final scope sentence is long and clause-heavy, but its content (write permission semantics) earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it still explains the key returned address and its role as the `domain` for memory_read/memory_write, plus the membership-scope outcomes. Nothing needed to invoke or chain this tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented there, including the 'mnvr_...' format. The description repeats the same prefix hint but adds no syntax or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Join a shared memory room') plus the required credential ('invite code, starts with mnvr_'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like memory_create_room and memory_invite_to_room.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('use when the user pastes an invite code or says join room with code ...') and names the downstream tools (memory_read, memory_write) this enables. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it is not a full 5.

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

Deploy Server