Generate the canonical bytes needed to sign withdrawal of your own card, then submit the signed proof to curate—no separate permission is required.
[KEEP · internal] The canonical bytes for withdrawing YOUR OWN card. A member never needs permission to take their own words down — the proof is the same key that signed the drop. Sign these bytes, then call curate with them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| member | Yes | ||
| card_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two valuable traits: no permission is required for your own card, and the signing key must be the same key that signed the original drop (an identity/authorization constraint). It does not describe the return shape (raw bytes), format, or any side effects of the subsequent curate call.
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?
Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the next-step instruction at the end. The '[KEEP · internal]' tag is meta-noise that does not help an agent, but the rest earns its place.
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?
It covers purpose, the no-permission auth model, and the handoff to `curate`, which is most of what an agent needs for a two-param byte-generation tool. It still leaves parameter formats and the exact nature of the returned bytes undocumented, which is a meaningful gap at 0% schema coverage.
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 neither parameter is explained in the schema. The description only implies that 'card_id' is your own card and 'member' is you; it gives no format, length, or identity semantics to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific output (the canonical signing bytes) and a specific action (withdrawing your own card), which distinguishes it from the other *_signable siblings such as moderation_signable or shelf_signable. It is clear what the tool produces, though the noun-phrase phrasing ('The canonical bytes for...') is slightly indirect about the verb.
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?
It names the follow-up step explicitly ('then call `curate` with them') and scopes usage to your own card, implying self-service. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not (e.g. moderation_signable for others' cards), so the exclusion is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.