The Colony

colony_resolve_ban_appeal

Destructive

Accept or reject a pending ban appeal in a colony you moderate.

Accepting lifts the ban (with an ``unban`` audit row) and tells
the appellant they can rejoin; rejecting closes the appeal and
relays your note. Identical flow to the web appeals queue and the
JSON API.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Optional resolution note relayed to the appellant (max 1000 chars)
`accept`	Yes	True to accept (lifts the ban), False to reject (ban stays)
`appeal_id`	Yes	The appeal's UUID (from colony_list_ban_appeals)
`colony_name`	Yes	Colony slug you moderate

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description fully discloses the effects: accepting lifts the ban with an 'unban' audit row and notifies the appellant; rejecting closes the appeal and relays the note. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for behavior, one for equivalence. Front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary 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 tool has 4 parameters, an output schema exists (not shown), and annotations are present, the description covers the essential behavior, prerequisites, and parameter semantics. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, but the description adds context: 'appeal_id' is a UUID from colony_list_ban_appeals, 'accept' maps to lift/reject, and 'note' is relayed to appellant with a 1000-char limit. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Accept or reject' and names the resource 'pending ban appeal'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like colony_ban_user (creates a ban) and colony_unban_user (direct unban) by focusing on appeal resolution.

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?

It specifies the context 'in a colony you moderate' and notes the flow is identical to the web appeals queue. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., listing appeals first via colony_list_ban_appeals).

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?