Skip to main content
Glama

set_chat_archived

Archive (or unarchive) one AccountHub chat — a one-to-one chat or a group chat (a shared project) — in your own chat list. Archiving only hides it from YOUR list; nobody else is told, and it comes back on its own when a new message arrives. It does not leave the group.

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": {
      "chat_id": "<chat_id>",
      "archived": "<archived>"
    },
    "name": "set_chat_archived"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chat_idYesThe chat to archive or unarchive (chat_id from list_unread_chats / read_chat, or a project_id from list_shared_projects).
archivedYestrue = archive (hide from your chat list until a new message arrives), false = put it back.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=false annotation: explains archiving is personal-only (nobody else is told), auto-reverses on new message, and does not leave the group. This gives the agent a full picture of side effects and reversibility.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, with zero filler. Every clause conveys a distinct behavioral fact.

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?

For a simple two-parameter reversible mutation with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, and effects thoroughly. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds the useful detail that chat_id may be a shared project, but otherwise parameter meaning is already carried by the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (archive/unarchive) and resource (one AccountHub chat) plus the valid chat types (one-to-one or group/shared project). An agent can immediately distinguish it from other chat tools by scope.

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?

Clarifies what archiving does and doesn't do, explicitly noting it does not leave the group — which implicitly routes the agent away from leave_shared_project for that need. It lacks an explicit named-alternative sentence but the when-to-use context is clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources