Rankwise

Archive a brief

archive_brief

Destructive

Remove a draft brief that was never approved. Approved briefs cannot be archived because their credits were spent. The brief can be restored in the app, and its topic goes back to the opportunity queue.

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": {
      "brief_id": "<brief_id>"
    },
    "name": "archive_brief"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`reason`	No
`brief_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`brief_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-readonly, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: approved briefs cannot be archived because credits were spent, the brief can be restored in the app, and its topic returns to the opportunity queue.

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?

Three short sentences with the core eligibility rule front-loaded, followed by blocking condition and side effects. There is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety profile, while the description adds preconditions and side effects. The main remaining gap is that optional parameters reason and note are not explained.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameters. It does not mention brief_id, reason, or note, and gives no guidance on the reason enum or note max length.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: removing a draft brief that was never approved. It clearly distinguishes the eligible state from approved briefs, but does not explicitly name sibling tools such as approve_brief or update_brief.

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?

It gives clear usage conditions: use for unapproved draft briefs only, and approved briefs cannot be archived. It does not point to alternative tools or explain what to do instead when archiving is blocked.

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

All Rankwise 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.