Release a multi-agent file lock by specifying path and agent ID, freeing the file for other agents. Include capability to release a specific lock type.
Release multi-agent file lock
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| capability | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / properties / capabilityAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Capability"
+}Input schema / titlePrevious value: -"mcp_rush_mesh_release_lockArguments"New value: +"rush_mesh_release_lockArguments"Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"mcp_rush_mesh_release_lockOutput"New value: +"rush_mesh_release_lockOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only names the action and does not explain side effects, ownership requirements, idempotency, failure behavior, or what happens if the lock is not held.
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 four words with no filler and front-loads the action. It is extremely concise, though this brevity contributes to the lack of contextual detail.
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?
For a state-changing lock-release tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, this is incomplete. It should clarify ownership semantics, whether agents can release locks held by others, and how errors are surfaced if the lock is missing.
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%, and the description does not explain what 'path', 'agent_id', or the optional 'capability' mean. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but 'capability' remains ambiguous and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Release' and resource 'multi-agent file lock' state exactly what the tool does. It also naturally contrasts with the sibling rush_mesh_acquire_lock, making its role unambiguous.
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 intended use is implied by the name and the acquire-lock sibling, but the description never explicitly states when to call it, such as after acquiring a lock or when an agent is finished with a file. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance beyond the implicit pairing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.