Skip to main content
Glama

busabase

by com.busabase
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Archive a node (reversible; the node moves to Trash)

node_archive

Archive a node (reversible; the node moves to Trash)

This is the only way to move a node into the archived state, and it is reversible — the node appears in the Trash view and can be restored. Review is permission-aware, decided server-side: it archives immediately when your key has write access on the node and lands as a pending ChangeRequest otherwise. Pass requireReview to always propose instead. Permanently deleting an archived node (emptying it from Trash) is not available to agents or API keys — only a person can do it, from the Trash page in the Busabase UI.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesId of the node to archive.
messageNoExplanation for the human reviewer of why this node should go.
playbookNoOptional. The playbook you are following, as `kind:nodeId[:key]` from playbooks_search (e.g. `prompt:nod_123:log-visit`). Recorded on the change request so the person can see which playbook produced it.
autoMergeNoArchive immediately if you have write access. Not a permission override — a changeRequest-level key still gets a pending CR. Default is permission-aware: archive when you can, otherwise propose.
submittedByNoProducer label recorded on the change.
requireReviewNoAlways propose a pending ChangeRequest instead of archiving, even with write access.
targetSpaceIdNoBusabase space id. Call auth_verify first and ask the user which space to use when more than one is returned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / playbook
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The playbook you are following, as `kind:nodeId[:key]` from playbooks_search (e.g. `prompt:nod_123:log-visit`). Recorded on the change request so the person can see which playbook produced it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: reversibility, where the node lands (Trash view), that review status is decided server-side, that requireReview forces a proposal, and that emptying Trash is impossible for API keys. This is exactly the missing context destructiveHint=false alone cannot convey.

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?

Dense and front-loaded — scope and reversibility come first, then the review semantics, then the deletion boundary. The only waste is the first line repeating the tool title verbatim, which costs a little space without adding information.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what happens on success in both branches (archived vs. pending ChangeRequest) and where the node appears afterward. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining the interaction between requireReview and autoMerge and the permission-aware default. It does not elaborate on message, playbook, or submittedBy, which are left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource ('Archive a node') plus an immediate scope clarifier: reversible, moves to Trash. This clearly separates it from siblings like nodes_move, nodes_update_settings, and list_archived without needing to open any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says it is the only path to the archived state, describes the server-side permission decision (immediate archive with write access vs. pending ChangeRequest), and names the in-tool alternative ('Pass requireReview to always propose instead'). It also rules out an adjacent use case: permanent deletion from Trash is not available to agents, only to a person in the UI.

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

All busabase toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources