Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Local AI Relay

Local AI Relay

by zxc972
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

chat_leave

Leave a chat room and stop waiting for new messages while keeping existing messages and avoiding automatic rejoin. Use it when an agent or client must exit a room without losing received history.

Instructions

离开房间并结束自己的等待；保留消息，不自动重新加入。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "room": "<room>"
    },
    "name": "chat_leave"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roomYes
serverNo网络房间的 http(s) 服务地址；省略为本机房间
session_idNo当前独立会话的固定 ID；新接入必填并在所有调用中沿用。有原生 thread_id 时须相同，否则本会话生成一次 UUID。省略仅兼容旧接入。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With readOnlyHint=false confirmed, the description usefully adds the two side effects an agent most needs: messages are retained and the client is not auto-rejoined. It still doesn't say whether the session_id becomes invalid or what a success/failure response looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence, action front-loaded, with the two side-effect clauses separated by a semicolon. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with no output schema and 67% param coverage, the description covers the key after-effects well but leaves session validity, error modes, and the undocumented room parameter to inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% (server and session_id are documented inline; room is not), and the description adds nothing about any parameter. That is the baseline-3 situation where the schema carries nearly all semantic weight.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb+resource ('离开房间' – leave the room) plus the scope of ending one's own waiting, which clearly distinguishes it from chat_join and chat_send. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, keeping it 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The action itself implies when to use it, and '不自动重新加入' hints at what it does not do. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over, say, chat_join/chat_status or what state the caller should be in first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools