PseudoLife-MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

memory_reinstate

DestructiveIdempotent

Reinstate a reviewed retired entry by durable ID in PostgreSQL. Requires a named principal, exact retirement preimage, and retry uncertain calls with the same UUID.

Instructions

Reinstate one reviewed retired entry by durable ID. PostgreSQL only; requires a named principal and exact retirement preimage. Refuses trace-invalidated entries and never changes derived cortex. Retry an uncertain call with the same UUID and inputs.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	Yes	Non-empty reason recorded in the audit.
`entry_id`	Yes	Positive durable entry ID from this bank.
`operation_id`	Yes	New canonical UUID; reuse it unchanged after an uncertain response.
`reviewer_ids`	Yes	Non-empty reviewer identifiers recorded in the audit.
`expected_text_sha256`	Yes	Lowercase SHA-256 of the reviewed entry text.
`evidence_packet_sha256`	Yes	Lowercase SHA-256 binding the private review packet.
`expected_source_sha256`	Yes	Lowercase SHA-256 of the reviewed source tag.
`expected_superseded_at`	Yes	Exact reviewed superseded_at database value.
`expected_superseded_by_text_sha256`	Yes	Lowercase SHA-256 of the reviewed replacement text.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.18.1Oct 14, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
Addedv0.16.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety bar is pre-cleared; the description adds real value beyond them with refusal rules ('Refuses trace-invalidated entries'), a blast-radius limit ('never changes derived cortex'), and retry semantics. It omits what exactly is mutated on reinstate, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 front-loaded sentences covering action, constraints, refusal behavior and retry, with no filler. Dense but every clause carries an operational fact, though the ';' run-on packs several ideas into one sentence.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations present, the description covers the remaining essentials: engine constraint, preimage requirement, refusal behavior, and retry guidance. The only loose end is the un-parameterized 'named principal' reference against the actual reviewer_ids field.

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?

At 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by linking concepts to parameters: 'durable ID' anchors entry_id and 'exact retirement preimage' plus 'same UUID and inputs' anchors the hash/operation_id fields. It doesn't resolve the fact that 'named principal' has no matching parameter.

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 gives a precise verb and resource ('Reinstate one reviewed retired entry by durable ID'), and the single-entry scope makes it distinguishable from broad write tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as memory_supersede or memory_forget, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states prerequisites ('PostgreSQL only', 'requires a named principal and exact retirement preimage') and a retry protocol, which is clear context for correct invocation. It never says when to choose this over alternatives like memory_supersede, so no exclusion guidance.

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