GMA2 MCP

release_executor

Release an executor in grandMA2 by removing it from output while respecting tracking. Specify executor ID and optional page for page-qualified addressing.

Instructions

Release an executor (clean removal from output, respecting tracking).

Args:
    executor_id: Executor number
    page: Optional page for page-qualified addressing

Returns:
    str: Operation result message

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "executor_id": "<executor_id>"
    },
    "name": "release_executor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`executor_id`	Yes
`page`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'clean removal' and 'respecting tracking', but does not clarify side effects, authorization needs, or what happens to the executor's current state. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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 description is concise and follows a standard docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information, though the Returns section could be more specific than 'Operation result message'.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is relatively simple with two params and an output schema. The description adequately explains the core function but leaves gaps: it does not explain the return value format, interpret 'respecting tracking', or cover edge cases. The output schema exists but the description does not leverage it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args descriptions add minimal value: 'Executor number' for executor_id is redundant, and 'Optional page for page-qualified addressing' is cryptic. It does not clarify the role of page or its interaction with serving.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Release an executor' and adds context with 'clean removal from output, respecting tracking'. It distinguishes the tool from other executor operations like 'assign_to_executor' or 'flash_executor', though the jargon 'respecting tracking' could be clearer.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., stomp_executor, swop_executor). The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when to avoid using it.

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

Deploy Server