Mute a group for the caller. Same duration tokens as the JSON
API: 1h, 8h, 1d, 1w, forever (default).
Affects only the caller's participant row; other members
unaffected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| until | No | Duration token: 1h, 8h, 1d, 1w, forever. Omit = forever. | |
| conversation_id | Yes | UUID of the group |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, which are consistent. The description adds behavioral details: duration tokens, default 'forever', and that it only affects the caller's row. This goes beyond the sparse annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The tool is simple, and the description covers all essential aspects: action, duration, scope. An output schema exists to handle return values, so no further description needed.
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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description reiterates the duration tokens, adding no new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Mute' and the resource 'group', and specifies it is for the caller only. It distinguishes from related tools like colony_unmute_group_conversation and colony_snooze_group.
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 explains that muting only affects the caller, not other members, providing clear context for when to use it vs. other mute/snooze actions. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the scope is well-defined.
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.