Submit a pull request to remove your npub from the DPYC membership registry, ending your participation in the social contract.
Citizen self-removal from the DPYC Social Contract via automated PR.
Not yet implemented — will create a GitHub PR to remove the member from the registry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npub | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool operates via an automated pull request (suggesting async processing) and that it is not yet implemented. However, it omits side effects, authorization requirements, and what happens after the PR is created, leaving notable gaps.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a necessary caveat about implementation status. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Although the tool is simple, the description leaves out critical context: parameter meaning, usage guidance, and behavioral details beyond the PR mechanism. The output schema may cover return values, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of when-to-use guidance make the description incomplete for reliable invocation.
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?
The schema defines a required 'npub' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on how to provide the npub.
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 description clearly states the action ('Citizen self-removal'), the resource (DPYC Social Contract), and the mechanism (automated PR). It distinguishes from sibling tools like confirm_citizenship or request_citizenship by indicating removal rather than addition, and it also flags that it is not yet implemented.
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 description implies usage when a citizen wants to leave the contract, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, never mentions alternative tools, and lacks exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but the guidance is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.