oddsky

retract_claim

Retract a claim you no longer stand behind by marking it struck through with a reason, preserving the original record instead of deleting it.

Instructions

Retract a claim you no longer stand behind (a mistake, a probe, a superseded number). It stays in the record, struck through, with your reason. Nothing in Oddsky is silently 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": {
      "case": "<case>",
      "claim": "<claim>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "retract_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`case`	Yes
`claim`	Yes
`reason`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical behavior: the claim is preserved and struck through rather than removed, and a reason is captured. That is exactly the non-destructive semantic an agent needs before writing. It omits reversibility (can a retraction be undone?), any permission/authority requirement, and what the call returns.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the retention guarantee. Every clause earns its place, and the payoff line about silent deletion is well placed.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 3-required-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the write semantics well but leaves the identifier contract entirely to an undocumented schema. It is adequate on intent and insufficient on inputs.

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 0% for all three required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'With your reason' loosely covers `reason`, but `case` and `claim` are never explained — no indication whether they are names, IDs, or slugs, or how to obtain them. An agent is left guessing at identifier format for every required field.

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?

States a specific verb (retract) and resource (claim), with a clarifying gloss of what kinds of claims qualify (a mistake, a probe, a superseded number). That distinguishes it from add_claim/add_hypothesis without naming them, though it stops short of explicit sibling routing.

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 parenthetical examples give concrete when-to-use conditions — retracting mistakes, probes, superseded numbers — which is real guidance about the trigger for this tool rather than add_claim. No explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion or named alternative is given.

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