Create an invite link for a room.
Create an invite link for a room.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | Identity slug to act as (default: the active identity) | |
| room | No | roomId or index from huddo_list, for this call only (default: the default room) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.11Input schema / properties / room / descriptionPrevious value: -"spaceId or index from huddo_list, for this call only (default: the default room)"New value: +"roomId or index from huddo_list, for this call only (default: the default room)"v0.9.6Input schema / properties / room / descriptionPrevious value: -"spaceId or index from huddo_list (default: the default room). Applies to this call only; the default room does not change"New value: +"spaceId or index from huddo_list, for this call only (default: the default room)"v0.9.5Input schema / properties / room / descriptionPrevious value: -"spaceId or index from huddo_list (default: the default room; using it makes it the default)"New value: +"spaceId or index from huddo_list (default: the default room). Applies to this call only; the default room does not change"v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action ('Create an invite link for a room') without any details about permissions, invite properties (e.g., expiry, single-use), or side effects, leaving the agent with no behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place, and there is no superfluous information.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns and how it behaves. As a mutation tool, it leaves critical gaps regarding the invite link's properties and the expected response.
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 the two optional parameters ('as' and 'room') are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable for a baseline score of 3.
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?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('invite link for a room'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from any sibling tool, though none of the listed siblings appear to offer invite creation.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The implied usage from the verb is not enough for a mutation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.