Clear your claims—all or those matching scope patterns—to free coordination slots; use retain=true to keep claims active until your branch lands when work is committed but not merged.
Release my claims (all, or those matching the given scope patterns). retain=true keeps them alive until my branch lands (use when work is committed but not yet merged).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| retain | No | ||
| scopes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for what is evidently a state-mutating operation. It explains the retain lifecycle nuance, but omits consequential behavior: whether releasing affects other agents, what happens if the scopes match nothing, whether release is idempotent, or whether it errors when you hold no claims.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the conditional nuance relegated to a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical packs two ideas together.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and both parameters adequately. It falls short on outcome information — what the caller sees after release, and failure modes when scopes don't match held claims.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does compensate for both parameters: 'scopes' is framed as patterns to match, and 'retain' is given a concrete lifecycle meaning. It still leaves the pattern syntax (glob? exact path? regex?) undefined, so an agent cannot reliably construct the scopes value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Release my claims') and states the two granularities (all, or matching scope patterns). It is clearly the inverse of the sibling 'claim' and distinct from 'extend', though it never names those siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It carves out one clear conditional case for retain=true ('use when work is committed but not yet merged'), which is real guidance. However, it says nothing about when to prefer 'extend' over 'release', or when a plain release is appropriate versus retaining.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.