Disconnect an agent from the shared radio channel while preserving all existing messages and threads. Use this to mark an agent as offline without losing communication history.
Mark this agent disconnected. Messages and threads stay on the channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-destructive side effect that messages and threads are retained, which adds beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, idempotency, or observable effects for other agents, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the one clarifying effect sentence is directly relevant and necessary for correct use.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema action, the description covers the core behavior and the most important side effect. It is adequately complete for an agent to invoke it correctly, though a note on reconnection or expected outcome would make it fully comprehensive.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description sensibly does not attempt to describe parameters that do not exist, and no parameter documentation is required.
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 clearly states the action ('Mark this agent disconnected') with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like join_radio by indicating a departure state. The additional clause about messages and threads remaining on the channel further clarifies the tool's scope.
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?
The description implies the usage context: use this when the agent should leave a radio channel. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and while sibling join_radio suggests the inverse, the description does not formally direct the agent to alternatives or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.