Retract a fact by its sequence number from butlerRecall. Writes a tombstone so the fact stops being believed while the original log row remains auditable.
Retract a fact by its seq (from butlerRecall). Writes a tombstone — the fact stops being believed, and the original row stays in the log so the history remains auditable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seq | Yes | seq of the fact to retract, as returned by butlerRecall. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that: the write is a tombstone, the fact stops being believed, and the original row is preserved for auditability. This clarifies that "destructive" here is a soft retraction rather than a hard delete. It stops short of covering idempotency or error behavior on a missing/already-retracted seq.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and its source parameter are front-loaded, and the second sentence carries the tombstone semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything needed: the action, the parameter's origin, and the observable effect on stored state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single seq parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including its provenance. The description reinforces but does not extend that meaning with format or constraint details, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("Retract a fact by its seq") and immediately disambiguates from its siblings by naming butlerRecall as the source of the seq. An agent can distinguish this from butlerRemember/butlerRecall 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical "(from butlerRecall)" tells the agent the prerequisite flow: recall first, then retract using the returned seq. It gives clear usage context but never explicitly states when not to use it (e.g., no guidance on retracting a fact that was never recalled or was already retracted).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.