Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Ankra

by ai.ankra
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Deprecate stack profile version

deprecate_stack_profile_version

Mark a published version of a stack profile your organisation owns as unfit to deploy (the twin of ankra stack-profiles deprecate): new deployments of it are refused and its deployments are flagged. The current version cannot be deprecated. Re-deprecating replaces the reason, note and references.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "version": "<version>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "deprecate_stack_profile_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoA note for whoever runs it, at most 2000 characters.
reasonYesWhy the version is withdrawn.
versionYesThe version to deprecate.
profile_idNoThe stack profile id (UUID) from list_stack_profiles. Give this or profile_name.
referencesNoUp to 20 references: CVE ids or advisory URLs.
profile_nameNoThe stack profile's exact name, instead of profile_id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses downstream consequences (deployments get flagged, new deployments refused) and overwrite semantics on repeat calls. It does not say whether the action can be reverted or what permissions/ownership checks apply; note the 'replaces' wording mildly blurs the idempotentHint=false signal, though not enough to be a contradiction.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tightly packed clauses, consequence-first and front-loaded, with zero filler. The parenthetical CLI twin reference is mildly extraneous for an API agent but still aids disambiguation, so it stays just below a 5.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, preconditions and re-invocation semantics. What remains unstated is the response shape and whether the deprecation is reversible, but with full schema coverage and safety annotations the definition is sufficient to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameter definitions are already covered and the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value: it constrains the `version` parameter (current version cannot be deprecated) and explains that on re-deprecation `reason`, `note` and `references` are replaced rather than appended — behavior the schema cannot express.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('mark a published version of a stack profile ... as unfit to deploy') plus the concrete effect: new deployments refused, existing deployments flagged. The scoping qualifier 'your organisation owns' and the explicit scope 'version of a stack profile' cleanly separate it from the sibling undeprecate/publish tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The triggering condition is clear — a published version that is unfit to deploy — and one hard exclusion is stated ('the current version cannot be deprecated'). It never names the reverse operation (undeprecate_stack_profile_version) or the publish/save siblings, so the agent must infer the alternative path, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

All Ankra toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources