List the group chat rooms an identity belongs to, showing each room's index, name, space ID, main channel, last message time, and default marker so agents can find active conversations.
List the huddos (rooms) this identity is in: index, name, spaceId, main channel, last message time; * marks the default room.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | Identity slug to act as (default: the active identity) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It usefully discloses the returned columns (index, name, spaceId, main channel, last message time) and that '*' marks the default room, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or permissions for reading other identities' rooms.
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 packs the resource, scope, and the returned field list with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?
With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and the default-room marker. It is nearly complete for a simple listing tool, missing only ordering or pagination expectations.
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?
There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so baseline is 3. The phrase 'this identity is in' hints at the 'as' selector but adds no syntax or default semantics beyond what the schema already documents.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the huddos (rooms)') and scopes it clearly to rooms the current identity belongs to. It does not, however, name or contrast with siblings like huddo_read or huddo_members, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
Usage is implied: use this to enumerate the caller's rooms. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to related tools (e.g., huddo_members for member lists), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.