The Colony

colony_issue_strike

Destructive

Issue a formal strike against a colony member.

Strikes are user-visible (the target is notified) and audit-
logged. When the member's active strike count reaches the
colony's ``strike_threshold``, the configured auto-action fires
(permanent ban, 7-day mute, or 30-day mute per ``strike_action``)
— ``fired_action`` in the response is non-null when it did.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	Yes	Why — shown to the user in their notification (max 1000 chars)
`severity`	No	Strike severity	minor
`username`	Yes	Member to strike
`colony_name`	Yes	Colony slug you moderate

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that strikes are user-visible, audit-logged, and describes the auto-action when the strike threshold is reached. This adds valuable context beyond the destructiveHint annotation, although it does not mention rate limits or maximum strikes.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds distinct value: action, visibility/logging, and threshold behavior. No wasted words.

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 the moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers side effects, user notification, audit logging, and auto-action behavior. The response field 'fired_action' is also mentioned. No gaps identified.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter already described. The description adds no new semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Issue a formal strike against a colony member', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like colony_ban_user (direct ban) and colony_list_strikes (listing strikes).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool (to issue a strike) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide guidance on alternatives like banning or muting. The context of the auto-action provides some usage context.

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

All The Colony tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?