Delete a colony's post-flair template. Requires mod authority. Posts that wore the flair keep their stored label; only the pickable template is removed. Writes the mod-config audit envelope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flair_id | Yes | The flair's id (UUID, from colony_list_post_flairs) | |
| colony_name | Yes | Colony slug you moderate |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: it states posts keep their stored label, only the pickable template is removed, and it writes an audit envelope. This complements the destructiveHint annotation effectively.
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 very concise: three sentences that front-load the core action. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (auth requirement, persistence of label, audit trail). It is sufficiently complete for this straightforward deletion tool.
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 100% of parameters with descriptions (colony_name and flair_id). The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline.
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 deletes a post-flair template, distinguishing it from related tools like creation or listing. It specifies the action verb 'delete' and the resource 'post-flair template', leaving no ambiguity.
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?
It mentions the prerequisite of mod authority and notes that posts retain flair labels, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly outline when not to use or mention alternatives, which prevents a higher score.
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.