Mark

Retire Claim

retire_claim

Destructive

Retires an active claim on the Claims & sources page. Drafts and post checks stop using it. It stays listed as retired (list_claims status retired), because posts that cite it keep its wording, and it cannot be reactivated: to state the fact again, add a new claim with save_claim. To change a claim's wording, call save_claim with its id instead; that retires it and creates the new one. Related: list_claims, save_claim, get_brand_context.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "retire_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	An active claim's id from list_claims.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`claim`	Yes
`appUrl`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 4, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / claim / properties / category / enum
```
Removed value: -[
-  "cert",
-  "price",
-  "lead_time",
-  "spec"
-]
```
AddedOct 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations: drafts and post checks stop using the claim, it remains listed as retired, citing posts keep the original wording, and the state change is irreversible. It does not say what happens if the id is already retired or missing, which is the main remaining gap for a non-idempotent destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its immediate effect, followed by consequences and then the alternative path. Three short sentences plus a related-tools line; the wording-change sentence repeats some of the irreversibility point but remains useful rather than padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the downstream effects, irreversibility, the sibling to use for the adjacent task, and the fallback path. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already constrains id to 'An active claim's id from list_claims'. The description reinforces the id source and, importantly, clarifies that save_claim with an id both retires and replaces, which is semantic meaning not present in the schema.

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 ('Retires an active claim') plus where it lives ('Claims & sources page'), and implicitly separates it from save_claim and list_claims by describing the outcome rather than just the action. An agent can tell this apart from the sibling write tools without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use (an active claim that should stop being drafted/checked) and when-not-to-use plus the named alternative: 'To change a claim's wording, call save_claim with its id instead; that retires it and creates the new one.' It also states the claim cannot be reactivated, routing the agent to save_claim to re-state a fact.

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

All Mark tools Inspect

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

Need Help?