Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Arroway

by app.arroway
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Take back your own pending proposal

arroway_withdraw

Take back a pending PROPOSAL that turned out wrong, usually because the person corrected you. Not for sanctioned memories. If the corrected version is durable, also write it with arroway_remember.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
whyYesWhat made it wrong — usually what the person said.
memoryYes#handle of the proposal, from a read
projectYesProject slug.
other_author_confirmedNoSecond call only, after Arroway said someone else's AI wrote the proposal: true to go ahead.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed9 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / memory / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • removedInput schema / properties / memory / pattern
      Removed value: -"^#?(?:[0-9a-fA-F]{8,32}|[0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F-]{27})$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / other_author_confirmed / description
      Previous value: -"Only after Arroway told you the proposal was written by someone else's AI: set true to go ahead. Never set it blindly on a first call — the point of the stop is that the person hears whose work is leaving the queue before it leaves."New value: +"Second call only, after Arroway said someone else's AI wrote the proposal: true to go ahead."
    • addedInput schema / properties / project / description
      Added value: +"Project slug."
    • removedInput schema / properties / project / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • removedInput schema / properties / project / pattern
      Removed value: -"^[a-z0-9]+(?:-[a-z0-9]+)*$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / why / description
      Previous value: -"What made it wrong — usually what the human said. This is the part worth keeping."New value: +"What made it wrong — usually what the person said."
    • removedInput schema / properties / why / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • removedInput schema / x-maxSerializedLength
      Removed value: -131072
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic non-readOnly/non-destructive profile; the description adds genuinely new behavior: only pending proposals are affected, sanctioned memories are out of scope, and a companion write may be needed afterward. It does not explain reversibility, whether the withdrawn handle is freed, or the two-step other_author_confirmed confirmation flow that the schema implies.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the exclusion, then the recommended follow-up. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusion, and the follow-up write. It leaves unexplained the two-call confirmation path and the post-withdrawal state of the proposal.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (why, memory, project, other_author_confirmed) are already documented, including the 'second call only' confirmation semantics. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Take back a pending PROPOSAL,' with the qualifier 'pending' bounding the scope. It also carves out an exclusion ('Not for sanctioned memories'), which separates it from lifecycle siblings like arroway_retire, though it never names which tool handles the sanctioned case.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger ('turned out wrong, usually because the person corrected you'), an explicit exclusion ('Not for sanctioned memories'), and a follow-up routing to arroway_remember when the correction is durable. No guidance on what to do instead for sanctioned memories, which is the only gap.

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

All Arroway toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources