Skip to main content
Glama

Oviond

by com.oviond.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Archive goal

archive_goal
Destructive

Archive a goal by ID. It goes to the archive, not away — list_archive shows it and restore_from_archive brings it back.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesGoal ID (from list_goals)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoConfirmation that the goal was archived. Widgets still pointing at it fall back to demo data.
successYesTrue when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Confirmation that the goal was archived. Widgets still pointing at it fall back to demo data."
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: the goal is not permanently deleted and can be viewed and restored via list_archive and restore_from_archive. This clarifies the reversibility and reduces the perceived destructiveness, going beyond the raw annotation.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero redundancy. The primary action and ID reference are front-loaded, and the clarifying clause about reversibility is efficiently placed. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an existing output schema, the description covers all essential behavior: what happens to the goal, how to retrieve it later, and how to undo. No additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already provides a full description for the single parameter (id: 'Goal ID (from list_goals)') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action (archive), the resource (goal), and the method (by ID). It also distinguishes the tool from other archive_* siblings by naming the specific resource type. The phrase 'It goes to the archive, not away' clarifies the semantic intent, making it unambiguous.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (soft-delete a goal) and mentions related tools (list_archive, restore_from_archive) that explain the lifecycle. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like deleting a goal (which isn't in siblings) or other archive tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

All Oviond toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources