Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hvip MCP Server

hvip MCP Server

by okx-wallet-H
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

agent_room_send

Send messages to chat rooms like #lobby, #review, or task rooms. Use it to post updates or communicate within specific channels.

Instructions

[L:READ] CAT:[系统] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog

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": {
      "roomId": "<roomId>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "agent_room_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes消息内容
roomIdYes房间ID。#lobby / #review / #task-T-003

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only (despite '[L:READ]') or mutating, nor any side effects, authentication, or rate limits.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short but at the cost of clarity. It is not well-structured and contains cryptic codes that reduce its helpfulness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and minimal description, the tool definition is entirely incomplete for an agent to understand its usage, return values, or constraints.

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% and both parameters have basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is cryptic and does not explicitly state that the tool sends a message to a room. It includes '[L:READ] CAT:[系统]' and a dependency instruction, but the core purpose is unclear.

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 provides a prerequisite ('call agent_catalog first') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_room_view or other messaging tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools