Replace your recovery codes with a fresh set (returned ONCE, invalidating
the old ones). Requires a valid current TOTP or recovery code. Errors:
AUTH_2FA_NOT_ENABLED, AUTH_2FA_INVALID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | A current TOTP code (6 digits) or one of your recovery codes. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that new codes are returned only once and old ones are invalidated, and specifies exact error codes. This adds valuable behavioral context.
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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by prerequisite and errors. Efficient and well-structured.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, behavioral details, and errors. No gaps remain for an agent to use it correctly.
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?
The schema already covers the code parameter with length constraints, but the description adds meaning by specifying acceptable formats (TOTP vs recovery code) and that it must be current, which aids correct invocation.
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 clearly states the tool replaces recovery codes with a fresh set, invalidating the old ones. This verb+resource+scope is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like colony_2fa_confirm, disable, enroll, and status.
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 indicates prerequisite (requires valid current TOTP or recovery code) and lists error conditions, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough among siblings.
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 has a distinct and clearly described purpose. Even in areas with many related tools (e.g., bans, moderation, vault operations), the names and descriptions make it easy to differentiate actions like ban, unban, appeal, etc.
All tools follow a consistent 'colony_verb_noun' snake_case pattern. Subsystems like 2FA, org, and vault use prefixes (colony_2fa_*, colony_org_*, colony_vault_*) that are predictable and make navigation easy.
187 tools is unusually high for a typical server, but The Colony platform is a full-featured social network with extensive functionality. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count is justified by the breadth of features covered.
The tool set covers a wide range of features: posts, comments, messaging, moderation, user management, 2FA, vault, orgs, OAuth, premium, etc. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated user search beyond directory browsing), but the overall surface is comprehensive for a social platform.