End a VRAM claim before its TTL expires by providing the claim ID, freeing NVIDIA GPU memory for new Ollama models.
Release a claim early, before its TTL would expire.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| model | Yes | ||
| detail | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| outcome | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| claim_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "claim_id": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Claim Id"
+ },
+ "detail": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Detail"
+ },
+ "model": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Model"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "title": "Ok",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "outcome": {
+ "enum": [
+ "succeeded",
+ "refused",
+ "failed",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "title": "Outcome",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Reason"
+ },
+ "summary": {
+ "title": "Summary",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok",
+ "outcome",
+ "model",
+ "reason",
+ "detail",
+ "summary",
+ "claim_id"
+ ],
+ "title": "ReleaseResult",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait: the claim terminates earlier than its TTL would have allowed, which tells the agent about lifecycle impact. However, it says nothing about idempotency, behavior on an unknown or already-released claim_id, or whether the caller must own the claim.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and effect lead. It is efficient, though for a mutation tool with zero annotations it is arguably too terse to be fully 'appropriately sized'.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a state-mutating claim-lifecycle tool with no annotations and a crowded sibling set (claim, renew, list_claims, reserve), the description is adequate but omits error/idempotency and permissions context that an agent would want before invoking.
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?
One parameter (claim_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description technically must compensate and does not. In practice the parameter name is self-explanatory and enumerates the single required identifier, so the value added beyond the schema is minimal but the gap is low-risk.
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 (release) and resource (a claim), plus a scoping detail: it happens early, before TTL expiry. That distinguishes it from the natural alternative, renew, which extends rather than ends a claim. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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 phrase 'before its TTL would expire' implies when an agent would call this (deliberately ending a claim early), but it never states prerequisites, ownership requirements, or how it relates to renew/list_claims. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.