Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fulcra MCP Server

Fulcra MCP Server

by fulcradynamics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

End Agent Contact

end_agent_contact
DestructiveIdempotent

Removes a single peer's contact grants from an owned Event channel, verifies the removal, and optionally archives the channel while preserving broader shares.

Instructions

Remove an owned single-peer Event channel's narrow contact grants and verify their removal; optionally archive it (restore_data_type undoes). Broader access and their shares are unchanged; broader_access_remains reports covering shares.

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": {
      "data_type": "<data_type>",
      "peer_userid": "<peer_userid>"
    },
    "name": "end_agent_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
archiveNoAlso archive the channel; records are kept.
data_typeYesOwned Event/<uuid> channel.
peer_useridYesExact UUID of its sole directly authorized peer.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.18.7

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint; the description goes well beyond them by naming exactly what is destroyed (narrow contact grants), what survives (broader access and shares), that archiving preserves records and is reversible via restore_data_type, and that broader_access_remains reports on residual coverage.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with the destructive verb first and no filler. It is jargon-heavy ('narrow contact grants', 'broader_access_remains') and the trailing 'verify their removal' is a slightly awkward add-on, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description still fills in scope, preservation guarantees and reversibility. It stops short of saying what happens on failure or what permissions are required, but for a scoped 3-parameter mutation this is close to complete.

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 all three parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates those constraints. It still adds value by tying the archive flag to a concrete undo path (restore_data_type), which the schema does not say.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: removing 'narrow contact grants' on an 'owned single-peer Event channel', plus an optional archive. The statement that 'Broader access and their shares are unchanged' implicitly separates it from delete_share-style siblings, though it never names one, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Applicability is implied by the tight scoping (single-peer, owned channel only), and 'optionally archive it (restore_data_type undoes)' routes the agent to the inverse tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many contact-management siblings such as leave_group or set_contact_status.

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