Apply retention policies to remove outdated backups across Timeshift, Borg, VM, and manual types. Use dry-run to preview deletions or force to proceed with this destructive operation.
Applique les politiques de rétention et supprime les anciens backups ⚠️ ATTENTION: Opération potentiellement destructive!
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| force | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| keep_last | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with a warning emoji and 'Opération potentiellement destructive!'. This goes beyond the annotation by emphasizing potential destructive behavior in human-friendly terms. Also, the description conveys that it applies retention policies, implying it may delete backups based on those policies. While it doesn't detail irreversibility, the warning adds value beyond the annotation, so a 4 is appropriate.
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?
The description is a single sentence that states the core action and includes a clear warning. It is concise and front-loads the purpose. The warning is placed advantageously. It earns a 4 because it is efficient without sacrificing clarity, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the warning).
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?
Given the tool's destructive nature and the lack of an output schema, the description should provide more context: what exactly gets deleted, whether dry_run is available (it is a parameter), and any safeguards. The schema does have dry_run and force, but the description doesn't mention them. The description is adequate but not complete for an agent to use confidently. It covers the primary purpose but misses important behavioral nuances like the existence of a dry-run mode. A 3 is justified.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided. Thus, the description must compensate. The description does not explain any parameter semantics; it only explains the tool's overall purpose. However, the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory (type, force, dry_run, keep_last), and the enum for type provides some context. Given the low coverage, the description should have compensated more, but the parameter self-explanatoriness and the enum help. Baseline for 0% coverage is low, and while the description doesn't add parameter-specific info, the tool's behavior is understandable. A 3 is fair.
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?
The description states that the tool applies retention policies and deletes old backups, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling backup tools (create, list, restore, verify, status) by focusing on deletion/retention. It is not a tautology and provides a clear purpose.
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 description implicitly tells when to use it: when you need to clean up old backups according to retention policies. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like backup_verify for checking integrity, or backup_restore for retrieval. The context signals suggest backups are managed by multiple tools, but no explicit routing is provided. A score of 3 reflects the implicit usage context but lack of exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.