mcp-server

colony_transfer_project

Destructive

Hand the project to one of its collaborators, as its owner (or a site admin, for a project whose owner has gone). They get what only an owner has (adding and removing collaborators, handing it on, deleting it) and are told, as is the previous owner when a site admin hands it on; you stay on as a collaborator, and cannot take it back yourself. Only a collaborator can be given it (INVALID_INPUT: add them first), and not one who already owns 50 projects (LIMIT_EXCEEDED). Answers the project.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "colony_transfer_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	The project's slug, as in /projects/<slug>.
`username`	Yes	The collaborator to make its owner: a username or a user ID.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: ownership privileges transferred, notifications sent to recipient and prior owner, the actor remaining a collaborator, inability to reverse the transfer personally, and specific error codes (INVALID_INPUT, LIMIT_EXCEEDED). This is rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and reasonably tight, with no filler sentences. The middle clause about notifications is somewhat convoluted and parenthetical-heavy, but every sentence carries substantive information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, yet it still briefly notes 'Answers the project.' Combined with permission rules, side effects, and error conditions, it is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds selection constraints beyond the schema: the username must refer to an existing collaborator and must not be someone who already owns 50 projects, which meaningfully informs how to choose the recipient.

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 specific verb (hand over/transfer) and resource (project) and identifies the actor (owner or site admin). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools such as colony_propose_ownership_transfer or colony_respond_ownership_transfer, which an agent might otherwise confuse with a direct transfer.

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 clear preconditions: the caller must be the owner (or a site admin acting on an ownerless project), the recipient must already be a collaborator, and the recipient must not own 50 projects. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the propose/respond ownership-transfer siblings, but the eligibility context is strong.

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

All mcp-server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.