retention_dueIdentify records older than a retention period and prompt per record to archive or delete, supporting compliant document cleanup.
Records older than a retention period – ask per record: archive or delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | Yes | ||
| years | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "retention_dueOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description mentions archive/delete decisions without clarifying that the tool itself only reports candidates and does not modify records, which leaves an avoidable ambiguity for a read-only tool.
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 compact sentence with no wasted text, and it front-loads the retention condition before the per-record instruction. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, even though the content itself remains under-specified.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description does not explain what is returned, how records are identified, or what 'area' scopes. The annotations cover safety, but the description leaves important operational context 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 both required parameters ('area' and 'years') rely entirely on the description for meaning. The description implies a retention period that loosely maps to 'years', but it says nothing about what 'area' means or how the two parameters scope the query.
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 identifies the retention condition ('Records older than a retention period') and a per-record decision ('archive or delete'), but it does not use a clear action verb for what the tool itself does. It hints at surfacing retention-due records but does not distinguish this from siblings like survey, inventory, or search.
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 phrase 'ask per record: archive or delete' gives implied guidance on what to do after invoking it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. The condition 'older than a retention period' implies the context, but alternatives are not addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.