AI Galaxy Compute MCP

release

Destructive

Release a GPU compute instance from AI Galaxy, terminating its allocation. Requires explicit confirmation to proceed.

Instructions

Release an MCP-owned instance. Destructive; confirm must be true.

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": {
      "release_plan_id": "<release_plan_id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "release"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	Yes
`release_plan_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 16, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the explicit behavior that confirm must be true, which is a key constraint not fully captured by schema alone.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that quickly state the purpose and a critical usage condition. Every part is essential and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is minimal but covers the destructive nature and a required condition. However, it lacks explanation of the release_plan_id parameter and any context about the return value or prerequisites, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but provides no details about the parameters. It only mentions that confirm must be true, but does not explain release_plan_id's purpose or format.

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 clearly states the action ('Release') and the target ('an MCP-owned instance'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like plan_release and rent. It is specific and direct.

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 warns that the tool is destructive and requires confirm to be true, which provides a condition for proper use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus planning or other alternatives.

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

Deploy Server