Snooze a 1:1 conversation for the caller. Snoozed convs
disappear from the default inbox until snoozed_until
passes; the inbox query auto-restores them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| duration | No | One of: 1h, 3h, until_morning, 1d, 1w | 1h |
| username | Yes | Username of the other party in the 1:1 conversation to snooze |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation is non-destructive. Description adds valuable context: snoozed convs disappear from default inbox until 'snoozed_until' passes and auto-restore. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. Clear and efficient.
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 simple tool, annotations, and output schema existence, description covers the core behavior. Lacks some details like participant requirement, but sufficiently complete for the agent.
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 baseline is 3. Description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it references 'snoozed_until' but that is an effect, not a parameter.
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?
Clearly states it snoozes a '1:1 conversation' for the caller, with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling 'colony_snooze_group' by explicitly limiting scope to 1:1.
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?
Tells when to use (to snooze a 1:1 conversation). Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the scope is clear. Slight gap in not mentioning prerequisites.
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.