booth_statusRead whether a broadcast room is open, on air, or playing a video, plus viewer count, start time, and Visit link from the host page by meeting ID.
Read-only: whether the booth is open, on air, playing a video, how many are watching, the start time and the Visit link as the host page shows them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meeting_id | Yes | The meeting_id of the room (from create_broadcast or join_broadcast). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does lead with 'Read-only' plus the exact field set returned, which meaningfully discloses the safety profile and return shape. It omits behavior outside an open booth (error vs nulls), auth requirements, and whether values are live or cached snapshots.
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 that starts with the safety profile and then lists the return fields in priority order. The comma-run list is dense but each clause carries information; no filler.
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?
No output schema exists, so enumerating the returned fields in the description is exactly the needed compensation, and the lone parameter is fully documented in schema. The remaining gap is relational: it does not situate itself among status, meeting_status, and capacity_status.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already explains that meeting_id comes from create_broadcast or join_broadcast. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource: reading booth state, with an explicit enumeration of what is returned (open/on-air/video/watchers/start time/Visit link). It is clear what it does, but it never distinguishes itself from the many similar read tools in the sibling list (status, meeting_status, capacity_status, snapshot).
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus the other state-reading tools; the agent must infer that 'booth' refers to a specific broadcast sub-entity. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.