Skip to main content
Glama

Stale decisions due for revisit

stale_decisions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Flags decisions that need revisiting when their revisit date passes or a stale condition matches later activity, providing reasons for follow-up.

Instructions

Decisions due for a revisit — past their date, or with a triggered stale condition.

Two deterministic rules. Date-based (flag="revisit_due"): events whose revisit_after has passed AND the entity is still live (queried via blame/diff/prior_attempts after the decision, or its changeset saw later activity) — pure age alone never surfaces. Condition-based (flag="review_suggested"): events whose stale_when text shares keywords with a LATER change event — the named invalidation evidence may have happened. Surfacing only: nothing is un-retired automatically; follow up with a supersede if the condition really was triggered.

Each result is the change event plus flag, revisit_due, days_overdue, active_use_signals, matched_terms, matched_event_id, and a one-line stale_reason. Date-due rows first, most-overdue leading; filter by entity_path, project, or agent. Templated and deterministic; no LLM call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentNoOptional filter to the agent that logged the decision.
limitNoMaximum number of results.
projectNoOptional filter to a specific project/repository.
entity_pathNoOptional filter to a single entity or path prefix — 'users' also covers 'users.email'. Empty = every entity.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant transparency: it details the two deterministic rules, explains that pure age alone never surfaces, specifies the live-entity evidence checks, and states that the tool is templated/deterministic with no LLM call.

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 moderately long but well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded. It uses three paragraphs for rules, output, and behavior; every sentence contributes information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, rules, output fields, ordering, filters, determinism, and next steps. Combined with the existing output schema and annotations, the agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already describes all four parameters at 100% coverage, including entity_path's prefix semantics. The description only restates that filtering by entity_path, project, or agent is possible, adding no new parameter-level information; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens by defining the tool as returning decisions due for revisit, either past their date or with a triggered stale condition. It then details two deterministic rules, clearly distinguishing this from history/search/log_change.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (decisions due for revisit) and states 'Surfacing only' with a follow-up recommendation to supersede if triggered. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion rules, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/masondelan/selvedge'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server