tower-mcp

release_claim

Abandon a file or symbol claim without committing, freeing the resource for teammates and preventing edit collisions.

Instructions

Abandon a claim without committing.

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": {
      "claimId": "<claimId>"
    },
    "name": "release_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`claimId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only states 'abandon' with no mention of side effects (does the claim get freed for others?), required permissions, reversibility, or failure modes. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the mutation semantics remain opaque.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is arguably too terse to be complete, but from a pure conciseness standpoint it is efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a state-mutating claim operation with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and many sibling claim-related tools, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what happens to the claim on release or how it differs from complete_claim.

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?

There is one parameter (claimId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not — claimId is never mentioned or explained. This leaves the single required parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a clear verb (abandon/release) and resource (claim) and the qualifier 'without committing' hints at the distinction from the sibling complete_claim. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided and the sibling tools (claim_intent, complete_claim, list_claims) are never referenced. The phrase 'without committing' vaguely implies a distinction from committing flows, but the agent must infer when to choose this over complete_claim.

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