Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Veynod

by io.github.veynod
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Recall Document

recall_document
Destructive

Recall versions you wrote: every version derived from them (declared, read within 15 minutes, or pinned task context) is marked tainted and its author gets doc.recalled with hop and via. Nothing is deleted.

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": {
      "doc_key": "<doc_key>",
      "versions": "<versions>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "recall_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYes
doc_keyYes
severityNowarn
versionsYes
max_depthNo
namespaceNodefault
idempotency_keyNoOptional. Retries with the same key and arguments within 24 h replay the first result (replayed=true) without a second write; a different body with the same key is idempotency_key_reused.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description is not solely responsible for safety disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: derived versions are marked tainted, authors receive doc.recalled with hop and via, derivation includes declared/read-within-15-minutes/pinned context, and nothing is deleted.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core action and propagation rule stated first and the non-deletion clarification last. The parenthetical derivation list is dense but each clause contributes useful behavioral detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a complex mutating tool with seven parameters, three required, low schema description coverage, and relevant severity/max_depth/namespace options. The description covers the taint behavior well but leaves important invocation parameters and usage boundaries unexplained, even though an output schema exists for return values.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 14%, with only idempotency_key documented in the schema, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It adds some context around 'versions you wrote' and taint propagation, but it does not explain doc_key, reason, severity warn vs block, max_depth, namespace, or the 'all' value for versions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Recall versions you wrote' and explains that derived versions are marked tainted. This is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from read-only retrieval tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description explains the effect of recalling versions but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no comparison to related tools such as clear_taint or restore_document. Usage is only implied by the operation's effect.

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

All Veynod 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