Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Symbolon City

by com.symboloncity
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Publish a revocation

symbolon_submit_revocation
DestructiveIdempotent

Publishes a revocation already signed by an owner key or by an agent key (this door holds no keys and signs nothing): it withdraws a mandate, stops an agent key, or declares an owner key stolen. It is sealed in the register and applies from its position there; records sealed before it stay valid. There is no undo. Submit it only if your owner or the signer asked you to.

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": {
      "revocation": "<revocation>"
    },
    "name": "symbolon_submit_revocation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
revocationYesThe signed revocation object {body, signature}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations that already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, the description adds critical context: the revocation must already be signed, this tool never signs, the act is sealed in the register and applies from its position, prior records remain valid, and there is no undo. Those details materially improve an agent's ability to understand consequences before invoking 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and consequences, uses short declarative sentences, and every clause carries operational or safety meaning. 'There is no undo' and the authorization condition are especially valuable and are not buried.

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?

For a destructive one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essential behavioral context: signed input provenance, lack of signing behavior, register semantics, irreversibility, and authorization expectations. The annotations supply idempotency and safety hints, so no significant gap remains for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for the single revocation parameter, so the schema already defines the required signed object shape. The description adds useful meaning by saying it must already be signed by an owner key or agent key, clarifying the expected provenance and purpose of that object beyond the schema's structural description.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: publishing an already-signed revocation. It also enumerates the substantive effects—withdrawing a mandate, stopping an agent key, or declaring an owner key stolen—and clarifies that this tool holds no keys and signs nothing, which sharply distinguishes it from any signing or sealing operation.

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 final sentence gives a clear authorization gate: submit only if the owner or signer asked you to. That is strong when-to-use guidance and implies a when-not-to-use condition, though it does not name alternative tools or describe failure cases such as an invalid signature.

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

All Symbolon City toolsInspect
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.

Resources