ai-agent-channel

backfill_superseded

Replay the supersede rule over rounds settled before it existed, previewing named candidates by default; apply reviewed IDs with dry_run=false.

Instructions

One-off: replay the supersede rule over rounds that were settled BEFORE the rule existed. Proposals for a pin that was subsequently given a new version are still listed, because the event that would have retired them happened when nothing was watching for it. This is NOT age-based quenching: the causal event demonstrably occurred, and the predicate is the one the live path uses. DEFAULTS TO A PREVIEW. dry_run=true (the default) returns every candidate NAMED — id, topic, who it was between, and which pin version settled it — so the channel can review it before anything changes; post that list and let the owner of each key object, because storage cannot tell 'listed because the rule did not exist' apart from 'listed because the round is genuinely still open'. The cut between them is the timestamp: a proposal raised AFTER the pin's current version is a live round and never appears here. To apply, call again with dry_run=false and the reviewed 'ids'. Retired messages stay readable and record WHY, as a 'superseded' event naming this backfill — the history must keep the fact that a cleanup happened. Nudges pointing at a retired draft are retired with it: their target will never be voted on, so nothing else could ever close them. ONE LINE PER MESSAGE, with every key that claims it listed inside under 'claimed_by' — a message claimed by five pins is a message where at most one claim is right, and collapsing those lines would remove the only visible sign of a mis-hit. 'fields' projects the preview the same way listings do; without it a real channel's preview does not fit through the tool at all. Optional 'fields' projects the response: a list of field names, or the single value 'headers' for the usual listing set (everything except the bodies). Omit it and the full record comes back exactly as before. Use it when a listing over a long history would otherwise be too large to return — bodies dominate the size, and a 'which messages' question rarely needs them; fetch the ones you want individually afterwards.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	No
`key`	No
`fields`	No
`dry_run`	No
`snapshot_at`	No
`expect_count`	No
`word_message_id`	No
`include_by_reference`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does so richly: preview-by-default is stated, it discloses that retired messages stay readable and record a 'superseded' event naming this backfill, that nudges pointing at retired drafts are retired too, and the claimed_by collapse rationale. Missing only auth/rate-limit details, but the destructive/reversibility picture is unusually complete.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core operation is front-loaded, but the text sprawls across many sentences and repeats the 'fields' projection explanation twice, once mid-paragraph and again at the end. Much of the domain narrative earns its place, yet the duplication and length detract.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure is largely covered, and the description adds preview-content detail. However, for an eight-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving five parameters unexplained is a real gap that the otherwise verbose description does not close.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it explains only dry_run, ids, and fields meaningfully. Five of eight parameters (key, snapshot_at, expect_count, word_message_id, include_by_reference) are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the heavy lifting half-done.

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+resource: replay the supersede rule over rounds settled before the rule existed, and explains the causal predicate (a proposal for a pin that got a new version). It is unambiguous in its own right, but never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling undo_backfill, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Gives explicit operating context: dry_run=true (default) produces a reviewable candidate list, then call again with dry_run=false and the reviewed ids to apply, and explains who should review. It does not state when to prefer this over undo_backfill or pin_history, so no exclusions/alternatives are given.

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