Create a new group chat room and set it as the default. Generates a guest identity on first use if needed.
Create a new huddo (group chat) and make it the default room. Creates a guest identity on first use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | Identity slug to act as (default: the active identity) | |
| name | No | Group name |
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 carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real value by naming two side effects: the room becomes the default and a guest identity is created on first use. However, it omits idempotency (what happens if the name already exists), permission/auth requirements, and whether changing the default room disrupts existing sessions.
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 compact sentences with zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the secondary side-effect note. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists and no annotations are present, so the description must stand alone. It covers purpose and the main side effects but leaves open what a successful call returns, what happens on name collisions, and why a caller would supply the 'as' identity when creating a guest identity.
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 'as' and 'name' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics about these parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a new huddo') and helpfully disambiguates the term as a group chat. It implies the create-vs-join distinction against huddo_join but never names the sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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 only implied: 'Create a new huddo' suggests you reach for this instead of huddo_join when no room exists yet, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative. No prerequisites or guidance about the default-room side effect is offered as a decision criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.