Skip to main content
Glama
LamantinAI

kaeru memory

by LamantinAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Hybrid

unshare

Withdraw a node from a named cloud to remove it from shared memory and keep the graph scoped to intended agents.

Instructions

Withdraw a node from the named cloud.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
cloudNo
initiativeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changedv0.8.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / cloud / default
      Removed value: -null
    • removedInput schema / properties / cloud / description
      Removed value: -"Which cloud to withdraw from. Required when several are configured."
    • addedInput schema / properties / cloud / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / cloud / type
      Previous value: -[
-  "string",
-  "null"
-]New value: +"string"
    • removedInput schema / properties / initiative / description
      Removed value: -"Initiative scope — required, same as `share`."
    • addedInput schema / properties / initiative / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • removedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Removed value: -"Node name or UUIDv7 id to withdraw from the cloud."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "initiative"
-]New value: +[
+  "initiative",
+  "name"
+]
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"UnshareParams"
  2. First observedv0.7.5

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, but adds nothing beyond it: no statement of whether the withdrawal is reversible, what happens to the node's other associations, whether permissions are required, or what an error looks like. For a mutation exposed with a single annotation hint, this is a substantial gap.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: there is nothing front-loaded beyond a bare verb phrase, and no second clause carries the needed detail.

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

Completeness1/5

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

A mutating tool with three parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint=false annotation requires far more than one sentence. Nothing tells the agent what a correct call looks like or what the effect is.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and all three parameters are undocumented. The phrase "named cloud" hints at `cloud`, but that parameter is optional while the description reads as though it is essential, and the required `initiative` parameter is never mentioned at all — an agent has no basis for supplying it.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a specific verb ("withdraw") and resource ("node from the named cloud"), so the general intent is inferrable. However, "node" is never defined, and the description never contrasts with the obvious inverse sibling `share`, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish the two from the text alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus `share`, `cloud_links`, or `link_cloud`, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The inverse relationship to the `share` sibling is left entirely to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools