spawnpoint

Unshare project

unshare_project

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove one email, or one domain written @company.com, from a spawnpoint project's allow list. Takes effect on the viewer's next request: the gate re-reads the list live, so revocation is instant. Removing a domain leaves any address at it that was shared on its own.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "unshare_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	the viewer's email address, or a whole domain written @company.com to share with everyone who has an address there
`project_id`	Yes	the id of the project

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`share_url`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`shared_with`	Yes
`share_expired`	No
`share_expires`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 12, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / share_expired

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": [
+    "null",
+    "array"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / share_expires

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding behavior the annotations cannot express: the gate re-reads the list live, revocation is instant on the viewer's next request, and removing a domain does not strip addresses that were shared individually.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by effect timing and an edge case. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description needs only to explain effect timing and the domain/email interaction, both of which it does. Nothing required to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by constraining the call to a single entry ("one email, or one domain") and by clarifying that a domain removal leaves individually shared addresses intact, which affects how the agent should sequence revocations.

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?

States a specific verb ("Remove") and resource ("one email, or one domain ... from a spawnpoint project's allow list") with clear scope: exactly one entry per call. The counterpart operation (share_project) is inferable from the framing without needing to open either schema.

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?

The description establishes the operational context clearly: this revokes allow-list entries and revokes immediately on the next request. It also disambiguates the two modes (single email vs. whole domain) so the agent knows which input shape to use, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like set_visibility or set_public_paths.

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

All spawnpoint tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.