Skip to main content
Glama
phasespace-labs

palinode

by phasespace-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

palinode_unretract

Idempotent

Undo one preference's mention-level retraction in a memory file by un-striking its retracted spans and clearing it from retracted_prefs, so a later forget request can strike again.

Instructions

Withdraw one preference's mention-level retraction from one memory: un-strikes every ~~…~~ [RETRACTED …] span the pref produced and removes the pref from the file's retracted_prefs record, so a later forget request for the same pref can strike again. Pass the pref phrase as recorded in the file's history sibling. The file's status is never changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prefYesThe retracted preference phrase, as recorded in the history entry.
reasonNoWhy the retraction is being withdrawn (kept in the audit trail).
dry_runNoPreview what would change, the retained copies and the recovery command; write nothing.
file_pathYesMemory file path carrying the retraction (e.g., 'projects/closeout.md')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.22.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Preview what would change, the retained copies and the recovery command; write nothing.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Addedv0.17.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, but the description adds real substance: exactly what is reversed (every retraction span un-struck, the pref removed from retracted_prefs) and the explicit invariant that 'status' is never changed. It stops short of noting permission needs or error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; the invariant about 'status' is placed last as a useful caveat. The heavy backtick jargon is compact rather than wasteful, though slightly hard to parse.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the scoping constraint (one pref, one memory), the parameter sourcing, and the state invariant. It omits what the response/return looks like and any precondition check (e.g., that the pref must currently be retracted), which would round it out.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description only restates the pref-sourcing rule already in the schema ('as recorded in the history sibling'), adding little beyond the structured fields.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a precise verb (withdraw/un-strike) and resource (one preference's mention-level retraction in one memory), and spells out the concrete effect on the file. It is very clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similarly named sibling palinode_forget_withdraw, which an agent could confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It hints at the motivating scenario ('so a later forget request for the same pref can strike again') and tells the caller where to source the pref (the history sibling), which implies usage. However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives like palinode_forget_withdraw nor any when-not condition, leaving alternatives to inference.

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