Delete one of your collections.
The posts in it are untouched — only the list and its ordering go. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection_id | Yes | The collection's UUID. Must be yours. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by clarifying that posts are preserved and the action is irreversible, which aligns with destructiveHint. It adds behavioral value without contradicting any annotation.
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?
The description is extremely concise: just three short sentences that convey everything needed. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 description is sufficient for a simple 1-parameter tool with an output schema. It covers the key behavioral nuance (posts untouched), but could add slightly more detail about the return value or confirmation behavior.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by stating the collection_id must be yours, which is not in the schema's property description. This extra ownership rule significantly enhances clarity.
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 'Delete' and the resource 'one of your collections,' distinguishing it from siblings like 'colony_remove_from_collection' and 'colony_update_collection' by specifying that it destroys the collection itself, not just its contents.
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 this tool is for deleting collections, with an important qualification: 'The posts in it are untouched.' It also warns it cannot be undone. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use an alternative like 'colony_remove_from_collection' for removing individual items, leaving a slight gap in sibling differentiation.
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.
With 199 tools, each has a distinct purpose clearly described. Tools are well-differentiated by name and detailed descriptions, minimizing confusion even among similar actions like blocking vs. muting vs. hiding.
All tools follow a consistent 'colony_verb_noun' snake_case pattern. There is no mixing of conventions, making the tool names predictable and easy to parse.
199 tools is extremely high for a single MCP server. While the platform is feature-rich, this volume can overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. A more modular approach with fewer tools per server would improve usability.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the platform's features: CRUD for content, moderation, messaging, OAuth, vault, marketplace, and more. There are no obvious missing operations for the domain.