Skip to main content
Glama

AvianSuite

by com.aviansuite
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Retract a fact

retract_fact

Use when a recorded fact should no longer count and there is no replacement value. Give its hash and a reason. The fact stays in history, marked as retracted. Retracting a retraction restores the original fact. When the result includes a receipt link, include it when you tell a person about the change, so they can check it and undo it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesHash of the fact or retraction to withdraw.
reasonYesWhy it should no longer count.
entity_idYesStable ID of the thing the fact is about, such as customer:42 or ticket:T-1009. Not a display name.
workspaceNoOptional. The workspace to act on, as list_workspaces names it. Leave it out to use this connection's first workspace.
operation_idYesYour ID for this one write, 8-200 characters. Reuse it when retrying the same write so it is not recorded twice. Never reuse it for a different write.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspace
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The workspace to act on, as list_workspaces names it. Leave it out to use this connection's first workspace.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description supplies the crucial missing context that the fact 'stays in history, marked as retracted' and that retracting a retraction restores it, confirming the non-destructive, reversible nature. It also introduces the receipt link for undoability. It does not explain auth/permission needs, which is a minor gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, then mechanics, then reversibility, then the receipt-link instruction. Each sentence carries distinct value with no filler, though the receipt-link sentence is the most tangential.

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 5-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the when, the mechanics, reversibility, and even what to do with the returned receipt link. Given annotations plus a fully documented schema, this is essentially complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so hash, reason, entity_id, operation_id, and workspace are already well documented. The description's 'Give its hash and a reason' merely restates two of them, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (retract a fact) and immediately scopes it with the deciding condition: 'when a recorded fact should no longer count and there is no replacement value.' This implicitly distinguishes it from correct_fact, which handles the replacement case, so an agent can route between them.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context ('should no longer count', 'no replacement value') and notes the reversal path ('retracting a retraction restores the original fact'). It never names correct_fact explicitly as the alternative, but the 'no replacement value' qualifier makes the boundary inferable.

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

All AvianSuite toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources