aziel-runtime

Suite disable is refused

mesh_disable

Read-onlyIdempotent

Instructions

Confirm that read-only QNM suite-presence stays ON (POST /v1/mesh/disable refuses MESH-DISABLE-REFUSED) — not a kill switch. Use this when a client still posts the historical disable route and needs the honest refuse. Do not use it for dropping one node or declaring an extra bearer; use mesh_leave or mesh_enable instead. Read-only refuse: suite-presence stays ON. No tethers drop. No implicit heal, no account resurrection, no wipe internals. Repeating still refuses. AZMail mesh_disable is a separate product-local mail ring. Returns MESH-DISABLE-REFUSED with enabled=true and a stay-on note.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	FragGate or fabric code when present: FG-OK, FG-HALLUC-TOOL, FG-STUB, FG-LOCAL-ONLY, FG-UNKNOWN-OP, FG-GATE-REFUSE, FG-LAMB-REFUSE, or a module refuse such as MESH-* / AKM-*.
`door`	No	Door name. The public door is fraggate.
`ran_in`	No	Execution locale (for example aziel-runtime) when present.
`result`	No	FragGate body: ok, code, door, slug, op, engine_digest, ran_in, provenance, refusal, limitations, receipt, plus the engine result. Unknown names refuse FG-HALLUC-TOOL; stubs refuse FG-STUB.
`status`	No	HTTP-like status when present on wrappers (200 ok; 400+ error / refuse).
`display`	No	Human-facing envelope. Show title and summary, then take the next input.
`receipt`	No	Optional receipt, ledger tip, or TemporalLock/ForgeReceipts exit when the door stamped one.
`refusal`	No	Explicit refuse object, code, or message when the door or engine refused.
`engine_op`	No	Resolved engine op when present (often inside result).
`ledger_tip`	No	Ask/refuse ledger tip when the door stamped one.
`provenance`	No	Provenance / input packet when the pipeline attached one.
`session_id`	No	Raw session id when session plumbing was used. Hidden unless the user asked for the chain.
`engine_slug`	No	Resolved engine slug when present (often inside result).
`limitations`	No	Capability limitations or Remain-OFF notes when present.
`engine_digest`	No	64-hex engine_digest when a true in-process engine ran (often inside result).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.1Sep 14, 2026

changedInput schema / description

Previous value: -"No arguments. Send {}. Always allowed."New value: +"No arguments. Send {}. Public suite disable is refused."

Addedv1.6.2Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses concrete behavioral guarantees: no tethers drop, no implicit heal, no account resurrection, no wipe internals, and that repeating the call still refuses. It also names the exact returned marker (MESH-DISABLE-REFUSED with enabled=true), which goes well past what the annotations carry.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the text is dense and repetitive: suite-presence 'stays ON' is stated twice, refusal is restated three times, and the AZMail product-local note is a tangential aside. The content is useful but not tightly trimmed.

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 zero parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to call it, what it does NOT do, and the identity of the refusal marker. No gap remains that would cause a misinvocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema itself already states 'No arguments. Send {}.' The description adds no parameter detail, which is correct since none exist.

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 states a specific resource and effect: it confirms read-only QNM suite-presence stays ON and returns MESH-DISABLE-REFUSED rather than disabling anything. The verb/resource pairing is slightly inverted from the tool name (mesh_disable actually refuses to disable), but the text explicitly corrects this with 'not a kill switch' and distinguishes it from mesh_leave and mesh_enable.

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?

It gives an explicit when ('when a client still posts the historical disable route and needs the honest refuse') and an explicit when-not with named alternatives ('Do not use it for dropping one node or declaring an extra bearer; use mesh_leave or mesh_enable instead'). Routing between siblings is unambiguous.

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