Creates a channel within an Agent Uplink server so local AI sessions can group messages. Returns a channelId for use with send and read.
Creates a channel in a server (there is a per-server limit). Use the returned channelId with send/read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Channel name (max 64 characters) | |
| serverId | Yes | Target server ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only mutation, so the bar is lower. The description adds two pieces of value the annotations do not carry: a per-server limit on creation and the fact that a channelId is returned for downstream use.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence carries actionable next-step information. Nothing is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema, so mentioning the returned channelId is genuinely needed and it is present. The only omission is detail on the per-server limit or any permission requirement, which is minor for a two-parameter create tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (name, serverId) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a channel in a server.' That clearly separates it from create_server and delete_channel, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to route the agent away from.
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?
The line 'Use the returned channelId with send/read' implies the follow-on workflow, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion relative to siblings like list_channels or delete_channel.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.