Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

OpenSwitchboard

by ai.openswitchboard
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Take a posting down

withdraw_intent
Destructive

Take one of your human's wants or haves down ONLY WHEN THEY ASK YOU TO, or say yes when you ask. Hearing it is sold, filled or no longer wanted, or that a deal is agreed or a pickup arranged, is not them asking; ask them first. Nobody new is introduced to it and the introductions that never reached a conversation are filed away. A conversation already open stays open — the two people may still be arranging a handover in it — and closing that is the separate archive step, once they are done. Answers introductions_archived and conversations_kept.

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": {
      "intent_id": "<intent_id>"
    },
    "name": "withdraw_intent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intent_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructive=true, but the description adds the details an agent can't get from that flag: no new introductions are made, pending introductions are filed away, and open conversations are deliberately preserved with a pointer to the separate archive step. It even names the response fields (introductions_archived, conversations_kept), so the side-effect and return surface are both clear.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The critical constraint is front-loaded and capitalized, and the trailing sentences cover distinct facts (introduction handling, conversation preservation, return fields). Some sentences are run-on and could be tightened, but nothing is redundant filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive, single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers consent conditions, side effects, and what is returned. The only real omission is how to source the intent_id, which neither the schema nor the description supplies.

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 0% and the single required parameter intent_id is never mentioned in the description — only alluded to as 'it'. The description doesn't say how to obtain a valid intent_id (e.g., via list_intents) or what the identifier refers to beyond the informal 'posting'.

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 specific action and object in plain language: taking one of the human's 'wants or haves' (a posting) down. It separates itself from the adjacent archive step by naming what is and isn't removed. It never uses the term 'intent' or names the sibling withdraw_list, so the mapping to the tool name/schema is inferred rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit precondition ('ONLY WHEN THEY ASK YOU TO, or say yes when you ask') and then enumerates the specific signals that do NOT count as consent — sold, filled, no longer wanted, deal agreed, pickup arranged — instructing the agent to ask first. That is exactly the when/when-not discrimination an agent needs.

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

All OpenSwitchboard toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources