Skip to main content
Glama
canopy-labs

Featureflip

Official
by canopy-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Set or clear flag owner

set_flag_owner
Idempotent

Assigns or clears the owner responsible for a feature flag, so cleanup notices reach the right person. Pass an active member's email, "me", or null to leave it unowned.

Instructions

Name the person responsible for a flag, or pass owner: null to leave it unowned. owner is the email of an active member of the organization, or "me" for the token's own user (needs a personal access token). The owner gets the flag's cleanup notices; evaluation never changes. Refused with OWNER_NOT_MEMBER for an email that is not an active member, and with PLAN_FEATURE_UNAVAILABLE below the Pro plan. Clearing is always allowed.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flagYesFlag key or id
ownerYesOwner email, "me" for the token's own user, or null (or "none") to clear the owner
projectYesProject key

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flagYes
ownerYesOwner email now set, or null when unowned
projectYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / project / description
      Added value: +"Project key"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "flag": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "owner": {
+      "description": "Owner email now set, or null when unowned",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "project": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "project",
+    "flag",
+    "owner"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Addedv0.1.9

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations only declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important, non-obvious behavior: who receives cleanup notices, that evaluation is unaffected, the specific error codes, and the plan-gating rule. That goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

It is front-loaded: the main action and the clear behavior come first, then value constraints, then errors. The information is dense but mostly earns its place. Slightly more could be compressed, but it's efficient.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers ownership semantics, constraints, errors, and plan gating. It doesn't explain the return value, but an output schema exists. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit guidance on alternatives.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the owner value: it accepts an email, 'me', or null, and 'me' requires a personal access token. It also clarifies that evaluation is separate. It doesn't explain the project or flag keys, but those are already clear from the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Name the person responsible for a flag, or pass owner: null to leave it unowned.' This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like update_flag or toggle_flag, which affect different aspects of a flag.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains the clear-vs-set behavior and the two acceptable owner value forms, and it states the refusal conditions (OWNER_NOT_MEMBER, PLAN_FEATURE_UNAVAILABLE). It also notes that clearing is always allowed. However, it doesn't point to an alternative tool for cases where the goal is bulk cleanup or planning, so it doesn't fully cover alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools