Prune old journal files and archive cold tasks according to your retention policy. Idempotent, so repeated runs are safe.
Run journal retention/archival for a project. Idempotent. Prunes old raw .jsonl files and archives cold tasks per the configured retention policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_slug | No | Project slug to housekeep. Defaults to the current active project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is idempotent and that it prunes/archives specific data (raw .jsonl files and cold tasks), which is meaningful beyond the tool name. It could mention whether pruning is reversible or requires permissions, but the core destructive/archival behavior is surfaced.
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 compact sentences front-load the main action and essential behavioral detail. No filler or repetition. Every word adds information, making it easy to scan and act on.
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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, idempotency, what data is affected, and the governing policy. It does not describe return behavior, but this is a housekeeping action where the core invocation semantics are sufficiently complete.
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?
The sole parameter, project_slug, is fully documented in the input schema with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but the schema already explains the parameter's meaning and default, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 clearly names the operation ('Run journal retention/archival for a project') and gives concrete scope with 'Prunes old raw .jsonl files and archives cold tasks per the configured retention policy.' This is specific and distinguishes it from journal editing/appending siblings like journal.append or journal.note.
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 description establishes clear context for when to use the tool: to run journal retention/archival according to the retention policy. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.