context-keeper

deprecate_entry

Deprecate an existing entry with a reason. Optionally merge its content into a target entry and link to a superseding decision.

Instructions

Mark an entry as deprecated. For decisions, optionally link to the superseding decision.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "deprecate_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Entry ID to deprecate
`reason`	Yes	Why this is being deprecated
`merge_into`	No	Dedup merge: fold this entry's unique content into this same-type target, then deprecate this one with superseded_by=target. Non-destructive — the target is only added to.
`project_dir`	No	Absolute path to another project whose entry should be deprecated
`superseded_by`	No	ID of the replacing decision (decisions only)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.15.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are missing, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state what 'deprecated' means, whether the action is reversible, or any side effects beyond the non-destructive note in the merge_into parameter description.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no redundant phrases. However, it could include more contextual information without being verbose.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the overall effect on the entry, how deprecation affects queries, or the relationship between parameters like merge_into and superseded_by.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by noting the superseding decision is optional and for decisions only, which matches the parameter title.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Mark an entry as deprecated', using a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly mentions the optional superseding decision linking for decisions, distinguishing it from other tools like update_entry or prune_stale.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prune_stale or update_entry. No exclusions or context provided beyond the basic action.

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

Deploy Server