Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
astrograph

astrograph

by Thaylo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

unsuppress

Idempotent

Remove suppression for a WL hash, allowing previously blocked structurally identical code to be written again.

Instructions

Unsuppress a hash.

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": {
      "wl_hash": "<wl_hash>"
    },
    "name": "unsuppress"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wl_hashYesThe WL hash to unsuppress

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.6

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It doesn't explain what unsuppressing entails (e.g., removing a hash from a suppression list) or any side effects. The description is essentially tautological with the tool name.

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 description is concise with a single sentence and no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It lacks structural elements like context or usage examples, which limits its usefulness despite its brevity.

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?

A simple tool with one parameter and no output schema still requires context on what 'unsuppress' does to the hash, its relationship to suppression lists, and any return indication. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the operation; sibling tools suggest a suppression workflow, but the description doesn't leverage this.

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?

The schema provides full documentation of the wl_hash parameter (100% coverage), including its description and type flexibility. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Unsuppress' and resource 'a hash', clearly indicating the action. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'suppress' by being its inverse, though it doesn't explicitly reference the suppression list context.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suppress' or 'list_suppressions'. No context or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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