Unpin a previously-pinned message. Admin-only. Idempotent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes | UUID of the message to unpin | |
| conversation_id | Yes | UUID of the group conversation |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'Admin-only' (auth requirement) and 'Idempotent' (behavioral trait) beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Very concise at three short sentences, front-loaded with the key action. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient and clear.
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 the simplicity of the tool (idempotent, non-destructive), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, admin requirement, and idempotence. It is adequately complete.
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?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (UUIDs). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is maintained.
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 action (unpin), the target resource (previously-pinned message), and includes critical constraints (admin-only, idempotent). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool colony_pin_group_message.
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 implies the tool is used to unpin messages, with an admin prerequisite. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context and sibling tool make the use case clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.