Permanently block a participant: you will never be discoverable to each other again, any open rendezvous closes, and no explanation is sent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subject_id | Yes | participant_id to block. | |
| participant_secret | No | Your participant_secret from join (rv_live_…). Alternatively send it as an Authorization: Bearer header. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It details permanence, the mutual discoverability effect, closure of open rendezvous, and the absence of an explanation sent to the other participant.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the key action and all major behavioral consequences with no filler. Every clause adds meaningful information.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics and side effects well. It does not describe the return value, but the absence of an output schema lowers that burden. Minor gaps like whether the action can be reversed are already addressed by 'Permanently'.
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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but that is acceptable because the schema is sufficient.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource ('Permanently block a participant') and then clarifies the exact consequences: mutual undiscoverability, closing of open rendezvous, and no explanation sent. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like report or withdraw.
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?
The description strongly implies when to use the tool: when a user wants a permanent, irreversible block with no explanation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: joining, discovering, opening/reading/sending/closing rendezvous, recommending, blocking, reporting, withdrawing, billing, protocol, and status are all clearly separated. Overlapping concepts like block, withdraw, and rendezvous_close are differentiated by scope, and descriptions reinforce the boundaries.
Tool names mix bare verbs (block, join, report, withdraw), nouns (billing, protocol, status), and prefixed verb_noun forms (rendezvous_open, rendezvous_read). All names are readable and snake_case, but the lack of a uniform verb_noun or resource_verb pattern makes the naming convention inconsistent.
Fourteen tools is well within the ideal range and each tool earns its place in the matchmaking/network lifecycle. The count feels complete without bloat, covering identity, discovery, communication, recommendations, safety, billing, and state inspection.
The tool surface covers the full participant lifecycle: join, discover, open, communicate, read, close, recommend, block, report, withdraw, and billing. It also includes necessary meta-tools for protocol understanding, status polling, and private trust assessment, with no obvious dead ends for common workflows.