Lift a user's ban in a colony you moderate.
The user is notified they can rejoin (they aren't auto-rejoined). Works on lapsed temporary bans too — it clears the row entirely.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | User to unban | |
| 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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description reveals that the user is notified but not auto-rejoined, and that the tool works on lapsed temporary bans by clearing the row entirely. This adds valuable behavioral context.
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 three sentences front-loaded with the core action, followed by clear behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value with zero 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 all necessary aspects: action, notification behavior, and scope (including lapsed bans). No gaps identified.
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% with minimal descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 lifts a user's ban, specifying the resource (ban) and action (lift). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like colony_ban_user and colony_appeal_ban by focusing on moderation context.
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?
The description explicitly notes the tool is for moderators lifting bans in colonies they moderate. It adds detail about not auto-rejoining and handling lapsed bans, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons. Still clear for typical use.
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.