Release a soft-lock to unblock work. Provide the lock ID or project, area, and agent to unlock.
Release a soft-lock. Pass id, or project+area+agent.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "hub_release"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| area | No | ||
| agent | No | ||
| project | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like idempotency, error handling, or prerequisites. Essential details missing.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the purpose and parameter pattern clearly.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description lacks context on what a soft-lock is, return values, or error conditions. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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%, so description must add meaning. It explains that 'id' is an alternative to 'project+area+agent', adding some structure. However, it does not clarify individual parameter meanings (e.g., what 'area' or 'agent' represent), leaving gaps.
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 'Release a soft-lock,' which is a specific verb and resource. It also provides alternative parameter combinations, distinguishing it from siblings like hub_claim (acquire a lock) and hub_get (read).
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 when to use (to release a soft-lock), but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare with alternatives. It is clear enough for an agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.