Playbook

Archive assets

archive_assets

DestructiveIdempotent

Archive one or more assets (up to 1000 per call): each moves into the Archive of the library it belongs to. An asset is taken out of its group unless the group is archived in the same call, and a group left with fewer than two assets is dissolved, as with ungroup_assets. search_assets leaves archived assets out unless include_archived is set. Use unarchive_assets to bring them back. Requires the write scope and update permission on every asset; archives nothing if any asset is in a trashed library.

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": {
      "asset_tokens": "<asset_tokens>"
    },
    "name": "archive_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset_tokens`	Yes	Asset tokens to archive
`organization`	No	Workspace slug, as returned by list_organizations. Omit it when the account has a single workspace — it is then resolved from your token. Pass it only when the account has several, or when you mean a workspace other than the obvious one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing cascade behavior (asset leaves its group unless the group is archived in the same call; a group with fewer than two assets is dissolved, as with ungroup_assets). It also discloses all-or-nothing semantics ('archives nothing if any asset is in a trashed library'), which is critical for a batch destructive call.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with scope and destination before side effects and preconditions; no filler. Minor redundancy in restating the 1000-item cap already present as maxItems.

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 two-parameter destructive batch tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, atomicity, permissions, and related operations. An agent has everything needed to decide and call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 1000-item cap that the description repeats. The description adds no extra meaning about the `organization` resolution rules beyond what the schema states, so the 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 and resource ('Archive one or more assets'), the batch cap (up to 1000), and the resulting destination ('moves into the Archive of the library it belongs to'). It also implicitly separates itself from delete_asset and explicitly points at unarchive_assets as the inverse.

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?

Names the inverse operation ('Use unarchive_assets to bring them back') and warns about downstream discoverability ('search_assets leaves archived assets out unless `include_archived` is set'). It also gives hard preconditions: `write` scope, update permission on every asset, and no assets in a trashed library.

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

All Playbook tools Inspect

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

Need Help?