Tulina

data_release

Release a claimed row — the NORMAL end of processing one row, and the counterpart of data_claim_next. Guarded by worker (same label as at claim time), and addressed by the _id that data_claim_next returned.

⚠️ Call it after EVERY row you finish, not only when abandoning: writing a "final" status no longer frees the row (#317). If you wrap your work in run_start / run_finish, closing the run frees everything it held — that is the safety net when you forget.

On a table that declares lifecycle.advance, releasing a row you WROTE since claiming it moves it to the next state (advanced: {field, from, to} in the reply); a row you did not write stays where it is.

datastore = the table's NUMBER (ns_id, the one data_claim_next handed you) — the form to use. Its name still resolves until 2026-11-08, then is refused. slot:<name> also works.

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": {
      "datastore": "<datastore>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "worker": "<worker>"
    },
    "name": "data_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`_org`	No	Org (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
`_group`	No	Équipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
`worker`	Yes
`_run_id`	No	OBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
`_project`	No	Projet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
`datastore`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the worker-label guard, the row-freeing effect, the #317 regression that makes status-writing insufficient, the run-level safety net, and the conditional state transition with its reply shape (`advanced: {field, from, to}`). This is behavioral context an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and sibling relationship, then layered notes with clear paragraph breaks; nearly every sentence carries operational weight. The warning glyph and the parenthetical asides add slight visual noise but no wasted content.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety model, the guard, the lifecycle transition, and the datastore addressing rule. It stops short of stating failure modes (e.g. wrong worker label, already-released row) or the general reply shape for the non-advancing case.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Adds real meaning beyond the 57%-covered schema: `worker` must match the label used at claim time, `datastore` should be the numeric ns_id with a dated fallback to the name (refused after 2026-11-08) plus a `slot:<name>` form. One wrinkle: the description calls the row key `_id` while the schema property is `id`, a small naming mismatch an agent must reconcile.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Release a claimed row") and immediately frames it as "the NORMAL end of processing one row, and the counterpart of data_claim_next", which pins it against its sibling without requiring schema inspection.

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 when: after EVERY row you finish, not only when abandoning, and explains why (writing a final status no longer frees the row, #317). It also names the fallback path — wrapping work in run_start/run_finish frees everything the run held — and scopes the lifecycle.advance behavior to tables that declare it.

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

All Tulina tools Inspect

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

Need Help?