tslink

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remove a shared service

unshare

DestructiveIdempotent

Stops sharing a specific local service by deleting its TSLink registry entry, Tailscale device, and local node state. Use when a user asks to stop sharing a named service.

Instructions

Deletes a service and its tailnet device, so confirm with the user before calling this. It removes the named service from the local TSLink registry, deletes the service's tailnet device through the Tailscale API when TSLink holds its exact recorded NodeID (a device matched only by hostname is kept and reported), and deletes the service's local node state once no tailnet node of it survives; a running daemon finishes that last step itself. It is idempotent: a service already absent is success with removed false. Use this when the user asks to stop sharing a specific service.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Exact registered service name to remove.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`removed`	Yes	Whether this call removed the local registry entry (true) or found the service absent (removed false). The request is idempotent, so both are success, and success does not guarantee tailnet device cleanup: check device_cleaned and device_warning.
`device_cleaned`	Yes
`device_warning`	No
`device_skip_reason`	No
`device_cleanup_skipped`	Yes
`node_state_kept_reason`	No	Why the service's local node state was kept when no other field says so: some of its recorded tailnet nodes were neither deleted nor confirmed absent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, yet the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the exact-NodeID vs hostname-only matching rule (hostname match is kept and reported), the local node-state cleanup, that a running daemon finishes the final step, and the 'removed false' idempotent-success semantics.

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?

The safety warning is front-loaded and every clause carries real behavioral content, but the second sentence is long and heavily nested with parentheticals, slightly reducing scannability.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive one-param tool with an output schema, the description covers all the non-structured essentials: confirmation guidance, precise deletion semantics, idempotency, and edge cases. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the single 'name' parameter fully documented (pattern, maxLength, 'Exact registered service name to remove'). The description references 'the named service' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Deletes a service and its tailnet device') and distinguishes it from the sibling 'share' by naming exactly what is torn down. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: 'Use this when the user asks to stop sharing a specific service,' and adds the strong precondition to confirm with the user before calling. The destructive context is front-loaded rather than buried.

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