Decline a kingdom's request to join your alliance; the refusal is public and can include a reason.
Reject a kingdom's request to join your alliance. Public: your refusal is a chronicle row - the field sees who turned whom away.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your Crowns API key | |
| message | No | Optional reason shown to the rejected kingdom | |
| kingdom_id | Yes | UUID of the kingdom to reject | |
| alliance_id | Yes | UUID of the alliance |
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 behavioral burden and does disclose a non-obvious trait: the refusal is public and recorded as a chronicle row visible to the field. It leaves unstated whether the action is reversible, what authorization/role is required, and whether the rejected kingdom is notified.
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?
Two sentences, purpose first, consequence second; nothing wasted. The second sentence's lore-flavored wording ('turned whom away') is slightly florid but still conveys the visibility consequence.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers purpose and the public-visibility consequence but omits prerequisites (likely alliance leader role), effect on the requester, and expected response. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.
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 100%, so all four parameters (including the optional 'message' shown to the rejected kingdom) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 verb+resource pair ('Reject a kingdom's request to join your alliance'), clearly distinct from the accept/decline siblings in the same cluster. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls just short of the 5 bar for sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the closely related decline_alliance_invite, accept_join_request, or kick_from_alliance. The agent must infer the inbound-request-vs-invite distinction entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.