Delete a colony's removal-reason template. Requires mod authority. Writes the mod-config audit envelope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason_id | Yes | The removal reason's id (UUID, from colony_list_removal_reasons) | |
| 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?
Annotations already indicate destructive behavior; description adds context about writing to mod-config audit envelope, providing additional transparency.
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?
Three concise sentences front-load the purpose, with no redundant phrasing or wasted words.
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?
Covers action, authority, and side effect (audit log). Lacks mention of irreversibility but acceptable given destructive hint and simple operation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented in the schema. Description adds no extra parameter information.
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?
Description clearly states action (delete) and resource (removal-reason template), distinguishing from sibling tools like colony_create_removal_reason and colony_list_removal_reasons.
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?
States prerequisite (requires mod authority) but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.
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.