Skip to main content
Glama

Arroway

by app.arroway
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Take back your own pending proposal

arroway_withdraw
Idempotent

Take back a pending PROPOSAL that turned out to be wrong, usually because the person corrected you. Not for sanctioned memories. It is kept as withdrawn, with your reason. If the corrected version is durable, also write it with arroway_remember.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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. 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
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that the record persists as 'withdrawn, with your reason' rather than being deleted. It omits the multi-call confirmation flow hinted at by the other_author_confirmed parameter (Arroway first reporting another AI authored the proposal).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope exclusion, persistence behavior, and the complementary call. No redundancy and each sentence contributes distinct information.

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 low-complexity mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this is nearly complete: it covers purpose, exclusion, persistence, and follow-up. The only meaningful gap is the multi-call confirmation path implied by the optional other_author_confirmed parameter, which the description never explains.

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 including the two-step other_author_confirmed semantics are documented in the schema itself. The description only loosely gestures at 'your reason' (the why param) and adds no syntax, format, or handling detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Take back a pending PROPOSAL') and draws its boundary explicitly ('Not for sanctioned memories'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like arroway_remember or arroway_retire without opening any schema, and the 'your own' framing in the title reinforces ownership scope.

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 a clear triggering context ('turned out to be wrong, usually because the person corrected you'), a when-not ('Not for sanctioned memories'), and routes the follow-up action to arroway_remember. It does not, however, name the alternative tool to use for the sanctioned-memory case it excludes, leaving that routing ambiguous.

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 Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep 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