stop_remoteUnpublish a remote link, deleting its stored bytes immediately and returning the link to local residency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | Label of the published (remote) link to unpublish. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond the annotations by specifying that stored bytes are deleted immediately and the link becomes local residency again. This complements the destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true annotations, giving the agent a clearer picture of consequences without contradicting any metadata.
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?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action ('Unpublish a remote link') before explaining the immediate consequences. Every phrase adds value, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with strong annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description covers the key state change and effect. It does not describe the return value or response, but the absence of an output schema reduces that burden. Slight gap remains around what 'local residency' means in practice, but it is not critical for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'label' parameter, describing it as the label of the published remote link to unpublish. The tool description does not add further meaning about label format, validation, or default behavior, so it stays at the baseline for complete schema coverage.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Unpublish') and clearly identifies the resource (a remote link), and goes further to state the precise effect: deleting stored bytes and returning to local residency. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like revoke_link or unprotect_link, which target different states or permissions.
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 description implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when a remote link needs to be unpublished and its remote bytes deleted. However, it does not explicitly state any exclusions or point to alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., revoke_link, unprotect_link), leaving the choice of tool to inference rather than direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct actions: account_status is account-level, links is inventory, serve/stop_remote are publish/unpublish, and the protection tools form a clear lifecycle. The only possible confusion is revoke_link versus unprotect_link, since both invalidate access in different ways, but the descriptions distinguish them well.
The link-mutation tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: protect_link, renew_link, revoke_link, unprotect_link. However, account_status and links are noun-only, serve is a bare verb, and stop_remote uses an inconsistent object, so the naming conventions are mixed.
Eight tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: account awareness, link inventory, publishing, unpublishing, and protection management. Each tool serves a distinct function and none feel redundant.
The core lifecycle is covered: publish via serve, unpublish via stop_remote, inventory via links, and full protection management via protect/renew/revoke/unprotect. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit update-to-existing-link operation, but agents can likely work around these.