set_equipment_archivedArchive or restore a grinder, machine, water, or scale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the equipment | |
| kind | Yes | The kind of equipment to archive/restore | |
| archived | Yes | 1 to archive, 0 to restore |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / kind / enumPrevious value: -[
- "grinder",
- "machine",
- "water"
-]New value: +[
+ "grinder",
+ "machine",
+ "water",
+ "scale"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds the useful behavioral nuance that the operation can both archive and restore, implying reversibility, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what happens to equipment once archived.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: action first, then the complete resource scope. Every word carries information, with no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple three-parameter tool with fully documented schema fields, enum constraints, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. Remaining details such as return format are already handled elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description, including enum values for kind and archived. The description only restates the equipment kinds from the schema and adds no new parameter-level meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses precise verbs ('Archive or restore') and explicitly names all supported resource kinds ('grinder, machine, water, or scale'), matching the kind enum exactly. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from siblings like set_active or register_*.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: use this tool when you need to archive or restore one of the listed equipment types. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not scenarios, but the action is unique among the sibling tools, so no routing conflict exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.