Locus

Pin endpoint

pin_endpoint

Idempotent

Add or remove one enabled endpoint as a typed tool on workspace MCP connections. The first pin requires explicit context-cost acknowledgement.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	Exact provider/endpoint slug.
`pinned`	No	True to pin (default), false to unpin.
`acknowledge_context_cost`	No	Required once: pinned schemas use model context on every connection.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	No
`pinned`	No
`pinned_count`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 7, 2026
- removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / pinned / description
```
Removed value: -"True when currently pinned."
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / pinned_count / description
```
Removed value: -"Pinned endpoint count after this call."
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / slug / description
```
Removed value: -"provider/endpoint slug."
```

Changed1 schema field changedSep 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "pinned": {
+      "description": "True when currently pinned.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "pinned_count": {
+      "description": "Pinned endpoint count after this call.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "slug": {
+      "description": "provider/endpoint slug.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds a genuine behavioral trait: the first pin requires explicit context-cost acknowledgement. That prerequisite is not encoded in the annotations and materially changes how the agent must call the tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the more consequential constraint (first-pin acknowledgement) is placed second but still reads as a compact caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the one non-obvious prerequisite, leaving only minor gaps such as the effect of unpinning on existing connections.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents slug, pinned, and acknowledge_context_cost thoroughly. The description restates the acknowledgement requirement at a conceptual level but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb pair (add or remove) and resource (one enabled endpoint as a typed tool on workspace MCP connections), which is far from a tautology of the name. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling, but no sibling competes for the same pin/unpin action, so disambiguation is largely moot.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies when the tool applies (pin/unpin of an enabled endpoint) and surfaces a prerequisite for first use, but never states when to reach for this tool over alternatives or any conditions that would steer an agent away. Guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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

All Locus tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.