Skip to main content
Glama

Oviond

by com.oviond.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Archive theme

archive_theme
Destructive

Archive a theme by ID. Reports using it fall back to the default. It goes to the archive, not away — list_archive shows it and restore_from_archive brings it back.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTheme ID to archive (from list_themes)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoConfirmation that the theme was archived. Reports using it fall back to the default theme.
successYesTrue when the call succeeded.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedOutput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / success / description
      Previous value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Confirmation that the theme was archived. Reports using it fall back to the default theme."
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the fallback behavior for reports, and reversibility via list_archive/restore_from_archive. This goes beyond just saying 'destructive' and helps the agent understand consequences, exceeding what annotations alone provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by consequences and reversibility. Every sentence adds distinct information with zero waste. The structure efficiently communicates the core behavior in under 30 words.

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 single-parameter tool with destructive annotation and an output schema, the description covers all needed aspects: what it does, what happens to dependent reports, and how to reverse it. It even names the relevant sibling tools (list_archive, restore_from_archive). Nothing essential is missing 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, and the schema description ('Theme ID to archive (from list_themes)') already explains its source. The description's 'by ID' adds no additional semantics. Per calibration, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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) and resource (theme) with the parameter (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling archive tools by naming the resource and explains the key behavioral distinction from deletion: 'It goes to the archive, not away — list_archive shows it and restore_from_archive brings it back.' This clearly separates it from other archive_* tools and any hypothetical delete operation.

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?

Provides clear context: reports using the theme fall back to default and it can be restored. This implies when to use (to temporarily remove a theme while preserving recoverability). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use or name an alternative like delete, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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