Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

retire_design_release

Destructive

Retire a design release to preserve its record while making its name stop resolving; include an optional reason such as a CVE or advisory.

Instructions

Yank a release — record preserved, name no longer resolves.

Needs Kiln Pro.

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": {
      "release_id": "<release_id>"
    },
    "name": "retire_design_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoFree-text reason (CVE id, advisory, etc.). Default: "".
release_idYesRelease to retire.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / reason / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Free-text reason (CVE id, advisory, etc.). Default: \"\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / release_id / description
      Added value: +"Release to retire."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's added value is the precise damage model: the record survives but the name stops resolving. That is exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot express. "Needs Kiln Pro" adds a tier gate that is nowhere in the structured data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two fragments, zero filler, and the irreversible-sounding effect is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. "Yank" is informal but unambiguous alongside the clarifying clause.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, effect and tier gate are covered, but reversibility is left ambiguous: it says the record is preserved without saying whether the name can be reclaimed. Nothing addresses what happens to dependents of the release.

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 description coverage is 100%, so release_id and the optional reason (with its default) are already documented. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Yank a release" names a specific verb and resource, and "name no longer resolves" pins the exact semantic effect. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling retire/release tools (retire_decor_something_release, retire_feature_release, retire_design_branch), though the name carries that differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The effect implies when to use it (you want the release name to stop resolving while keeping the record), and "Needs Kiln Pro" flags a prerequisite. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as verify_design_release or delete_design.

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