Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Neotoma

Neotoma

by markmhendrickson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

remove_peer

Deactivate a peer by ID to remove it from active use in the versioned state layer. Ensures the peer no longer participates in operations while preserving provenance.

Instructions

Deactivate a peer by peer_id.

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": {
      "peer_id": "<peer_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_peer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
peer_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.15.0
  2. Removedv0.14.0
  3. Addedv0.12.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states 'Deactivate a peer' but does not clarify whether the action is reversible, what happens to associated data, or any authentication requirements. With zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short (one sentence) and to the point. However, brevity comes at the cost of missing important details. It is not verbose, but could be improved slightly without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema), the description is minimally acceptable but lacks behavioral context. It does not explain return values, side effects, or any error conditions. For a deactivation operation, more completeness is expected.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'peer_id' with 0% description coverage. The description merely repeats the parameter name ('by peer_id') without adding any semantic detail about format, constraints, or examples. The schema provides only a type string, leaving the agent with minimal understanding.

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 ('Deactivate a peer') and the required input ('by peer_id'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sync_peer' or 'add_peer'.

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 alternatives (e.g., 'add_peer' or 'sync_peer'). The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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