Retract a rule with a reason when it is superseded or no longer valid, using rule IDs from check_rules results.
Retract one of your rules (e.g. superseded by a reworded version), with a reason. Rule ids are in check_rules results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| feature | Yes | ||
| rule_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and this is a mutation operation, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions requiring a reason and where to find rule IDs, but does not disclose whether retraction is permanent, what side effects occur, what permissions are needed, or what happens to dependent rules.
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 two tight sentences with no wasted text. The core action is front-loaded, and the example and rule-ID hint are useful without bloating the definition.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a no-annotation mutation tool with three required parameters and zero schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete: the feature parameter is unexplained and behavioral consequences of retraction are missing.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It clarifies rule_id by saying IDs are in check_rules results and echoes that reason is required, but it gives no meaning at all for the feature parameter and adds little format detail for reason.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: retract a rule. It also gives a concrete example of when a rule might be retracted and points to check_rules for rule IDs. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_rules.
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 gives one implied usage scenario: a rule superseded by a reworded version. It also says rule IDs come from check_rules results. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as list_rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.