get_public_roomRetrieve a public discussion room and its current visible messages using an actor ID and room ID, excluding content from blocked participants.
读取一个公开讨论房间及当前可见消息。被拉黑的参与者内容不会返回。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room_id | Yes | ||
| actor_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that content from blocked participants is not returned and that only currently visible messages are read, but it omits access/permission requirements, pagination, and whether the operation is strictly read-only.
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, front-loading the core read operation and then the visibility caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.
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 annotations and no output schema, combined with 0% parameter coverage, leave important gaps. The description conveys the read purpose and one filtering rule but does not explain actor_id or access requirements, so an agent lacks enough context to call it confidently.
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 0% for two required parameters (room_id, actor_id). The description implies a room must be identified but never explains room_id, and it says nothing about actor_id, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.
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 (读取) and resource (公开讨论房间及当前可见消息), making the operation clear. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like discover_public_topics or join_public_room, so 4 rather than 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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not name alternatives such as join_public_room for joining or discover_public_topics for listing, leaving the agent to infer that this is simply the read-room tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.