Skip to main content
Glama

release_from

Destructive

Releases a place from a specified host and user to clear a stale or foreign hold. Verifies the release by comparing state before and after, ensuring the intended identity no longer holds the place.

Instructions

Release place from a specific host/user identity.

        Unlike ``release_place`` (which only ever releases OUR OWN
        acquisition), this targets an arbitrary identity -- useful for an
        operator clearing a stale/foreign hold. Design §11.14/§11.8 trap:
        the coordinator's ``ReleasePlace`` does NO format validation on
        ``fromuser``, and a non-empty ``fromuser`` that does not match the
        place's actual holder is a SILENT no-op that still reports
        success -- so simply checking "not acquired by fromuser
        afterward" is USELESS (it is already true before the call
        whenever ``fromuser`` never held the place, which is exactly the
        mismatch case). The only way to tell whether THIS call actually
        changed anything is to compare a snapshot from BEFORE the RPC
        against one from after: ``released`` is True iff ``fromuser`` was
        the holder beforehand AND is no longer the holder afterward (a
        place ``fromuser`` never held reports ``released=False`` --
        nothing was there for this call to release). This tool talks
        directly to the coordinator client (like the place-metadata
        mutators) rather than through ``session.release_place``, since
        that helper only knows how to release OUR OWN identity and would
        refuse before ever sending the RPC for anyone else's.
        ``host``/``user`` must each be non-empty and "/"-free -- validated
        (mirroring ``allow_place``'s ``_validate_identity``) BEFORE any RPC,
        since the coordinator does no validation of its own (§11.14 above).
        

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYes
userYes
placeYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traps beyond the annotations: the coordinator's silent no-op on fromuser mismatch, the unreliability of a post-call check, the need to compare snapshots, and the validation performed before the RPC. It also explains the direct coordinator path, all reinforcing the destructiveHint and providing context annotations alone cannot convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Despite its length, every sentence adds essential value: the contrast with release_place, the silent no-op trap, the correct verification method, the internal client path, and validation rules. The description is front-loaded with a clear summary and logically organized, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers all critical aspects: purpose, usage context, behavioral traps, verification methodology, validation requirements, and internal execution path. The output schema handles return value details, so no further elaboration is needed, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the role of each parameter (place, host/user identity) and the validation requirements (non-empty, '/'-free). While it does not provide exhaustive format details or examples, it gives sufficient semantic meaning for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence clearly states the action (release) and the target (place, from a specific host/user identity). It explicitly contrasts with release_place, making the purpose unmistakable by distinguishing the arbitrary identity targeting from the sibling's own-acquisition-only behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states the use case (operator clearing a stale/foreign hold) and contrasts with release_place, noting that session.release_place would refuse to release another identity. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and identifies the alternative and why it is unsuitable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/onurcelep/labgrid-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server