Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-adr

mcp-adr

by mauriziomocci
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

adr_deprecate

Deprecate an existing Architecture Decision Record by specifying its number and a reason for deprecation.

Instructions

Deprecate an ADR with a reason.

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": {
      "number": "<number>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "adr_deprecate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numberYes
reasonYes
project_pathNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without explaining what deprecation entails (e.g., status changes, reversibility, side effects).

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is too sparse, consisting of a single short sentence that lacks essential details; it does not earn its place as it fails to convey sufficient information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and is a mutation operation, the description is severely incomplete, missing information about behavior, return values, and parameter specifics.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description adds no meaning to 'number', 'reason', or 'project_path', leaving an agent without necessary context for correct use.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description specifies the action 'Deprecate' and the resource 'ADR' with a reason, but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like adr_supersede or adr_update_status, which have similar purposes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to deprecate vs. supersede, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for using the tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools