Create an invite link for a Huddo room so people or AI agents can join the group chat. Optionally choose the room and acting identity.
Create an invite link for a room.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | Identity slug to act as (default: the active identity) | |
| room | No | spaceId or index from huddo_list (default: the default room; using it makes it the default) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the invite expires, whether it is single-use or reusable, what permissions are required, or whether it can be revoked. 'Create' implies a mutation, but no side effects or auth requirements are described.
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 with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise given the tool's mutation behavior.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not say what the created link looks like, how long it lasts, or what permissions/identity are involved. The schema covers the inputs, but the behavioral picture an agent needs to invoke this safely is absent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (as, room) are already fully documented with defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for a fully-covered schema.
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 ('Create') and resource ('invite link for a room'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as huddo_join or huddo_new, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can place it.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. An agent must infer that this is the tool for generating an invite rather than joining a room, which is implied but never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.