Retracts an entry from shared team memory without replacement, so authors or admins can remove outdated or incorrect content while preserving access control.
Withdraw an entry (retract without replacing). Only the author or an admin may withdraw; an entry you may not read answers not_found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| entry_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two valuable traits: a permission model (author or admin only) and a deliberate not_found response that hides existence of unreadable entries. It omits other behavioral facts an agent needs — whether withdrawal is reversible, whether the entry is soft-deleted or purged, whether the optional reason is stored, and what a successful call returns.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its meaning, with no filler. It borders on telegraphic — the second clause packs permission and error semantics together — but nothing stated is wasted.
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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves substantial gaps: reversibility, effect on the entry (soft vs hard delete), behavior of the reason field, and return shape are all unstated. The permission and not_found notes are good but cover only part of what an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.
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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. entry_id is only implied by the phrase 'an entry', and the optional 'reason' parameter is never mentioned at all — no indication of whether it is recorded, surfaced to others, or shown in audits.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (withdraw an entry) and immediately clarifies the semantics with 'retract without replacing', which implicitly distinguishes it from the mutating sibling hive_write. It never names hive_write explicitly, so an agent must infer the contrast, but the core action is unambiguous.
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 authorization condition (author or admin) and the not_found behavior for unreadable entries give useful preconditions for calling it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose withdraw over hive_write for removing/replacing content, nor any mention of prerequisites like prior hive_get lookup or required state of the entry.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.