R3

Take a live project offline

r3_unpublish_live

DestructiveIdempotent

Take a live R3 project offline: its public live URL stops working at once, and the live-project slot it used on the plan is free again. Only when the user asked for it. Other people open a live project, so one that blocks an r3_project_delete goes offline only once the user has been asked and agreed, never as a step of the delete. Deletes nothing: the project, and any preview link, stay; r3_publish_live makes it live again. A project that is not live is refused and left as it is. Needs the publish:live right.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	The project id (r3_project_list).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`live`	Yes
`answer`	Yes	This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.
`projectId`	Yes
`environment`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / answer

Added value: +{
+  "description": "This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "projectId",
-  "live",
-  "environment"
-]New value: +[
+  "projectId",
+  "live",
+  "environment",
+  "answer"
+]

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by stating the immediate effect (URL stops working at once, slot freed), that nothing is deleted (project and preview link persist), the failure mode for non-live projects ('refused and left as it is'), and the required authorization ('Needs the publish:live right'). The 'Deletes nothing' clarification usefully refines what destructiveHint=true actually means here rather than contradicting it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the operational effect before the consent and delete-interaction rules, and each sentence carries distinct information. It is on the dense/long side for a single-parameter tool, but no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter mutation the description covers effects, authorization requirement, consent gate, refusal behavior, and sibling interactions — everything an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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% and the single projectId parameter is already documented in the schema (including the pointer to r3_project_list). The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Take a live R3 project offline') and immediately defines the concrete effect: the public live URL stops working and the live-project slot is freed. It also names the inverse sibling r3_publish_live and distinguishes itself from r3_project_delete, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit precondition ('Only when the user asked for it') and a precise non-use case: it must never run as a step of an r3_project_delete, and only after the user has been asked and agreed. The alternative r3_publish_live is named for the reverse operation, leaving nothing to inference.

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

All R3 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?