Skip to main content
Glama

w3_reset

Reset the agent state on the MCP IPFS Server by removing all proofs and delegations while retaining the agent DID. Requires explicit confirmation to proceed.

Instructions

DANGEROUS: Resets the agent state, removing all proofs and delegations but retaining the agent DID. Requires explicit confirmation argument.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmResetYesMust be exactly 'yes-i-am-sure' to confirm resetting agent state (removes proofs/delegations).

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the w3_reset tool logic by running the 'w3 reset' command after validating arguments.
    const handleW3Reset: ToolHandler = async (_args) => {
      const parsed = Schemas.W3ResetArgsSchema.safeParse(_args);
      if (!parsed.success)
        throw new Error(`Invalid arguments for w3_reset: ${parsed.error.message}`);
      // const { confirmReset: _confirmReset } = parsed.data; // Value checked by schema
      const { stdout } = await runW3Command(`reset`);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify({
              message:
                "Agent state reset successfully (proofs/delegations removed).",
              output: stdout.trim(),
            }),
          },
        ],
      };
    };
  • Input schema for w3_reset tool using Zod, requiring a confirmation string to prevent accidental resets.
    export const W3ResetArgsSchema = z
      .object({
        confirmReset: z
          .literal("yes-i-am-sure")
          .describe(
            "Must be exactly 'yes-i-am-sure' to confirm resetting agent state (removes proofs/delegations)."
          ),
      })
      .describe(
        "DANGEROUS: Resets the agent state, removing all proofs and delegations but retaining the agent DID. Requires explicit confirmation argument."
      );
  • Maps the 'w3_reset' tool name to its handler function in the toolHandlers export used by the MCP server.
    w3_reset: handleW3Reset,
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the dangerous nature of the operation ('DANGEROUS'), specifies what gets destroyed ('removing all proofs and delegations') and what is retained ('retaining the agent DID'), and mentions the confirmation requirement. However, it lacks details on irreversible effects or error handling.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads critical information ('DANGEROUS'), states the action and its effects, and ends with the confirmation requirement. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a dangerous, single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, behavioral risks, and parameter context. It could improve by specifying output behavior or error cases, but given the simplicity, it's largely adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (confirmReset). The description adds context by explaining why the parameter is required ('Requires explicit confirmation argument'), which provides semantic meaning beyond the schema's technical constraint. No parameters are missing documentation.

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 specific action ('resets the agent state'), specifies what is removed ('all proofs and delegations'), and what is retained ('the agent DID'). It distinguishes this destructive operation from sibling tools that manage proofs/delegations (e.g., w3_proof_ls, w3_delegation_create) without performing resets.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: for resetting agent state when confirmation is provided. It implies when not to use it (e.g., for routine operations like listing or adding proofs/delegations, which are handled by sibling tools), and the confirmation requirement serves as a usage prerequisite.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alexbakers/mcp-ipfs'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server