Archive a project you own. Reversible: the project + slug persist and credits are kept, but the data plane drops the tenant (callers get 404). Idempotent. Fails with an error if the project has archive protection enabled — that is a support-only unlock, not something this call can override. Requires an ACCOUNT-scoped token and the config scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The slug of a project you own. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds rich behavioral details: reversibility, persistence of project and slug, credit retention, data plane tenant drop (404), idempotency, and failure conditions. This goes well beyond the annotations.
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?
Three focused sentences front-loaded with the core purpose, then adding essential caveats. No filler or redundant information.
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?
Given the single parameter, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, effects, reversibility, idempotency, failure mode, and authentication requirements. Complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.
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?
The schema fully describes the slug parameter (100% coverage), and the description doesn't add information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the tool archives a project, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like unarchive_project by describing the reversible nature and consequences.
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?
Provides clear context: requires ACCOUNT-scoped token and config scope, fails if archive protection is enabled. It implies the action is reversible but doesn't explicitly name unarchive_project as the alternative, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and the descriptions are unusually explicit, but the billing cluster (change_plan/cancel_subscription and the many add-on actions) plus the preview/diff tools overlap and could cause mis-selection. config_diff, dry_run_endpoint, and preview_line_draft all read as 'preview what will change' at first glance despite different scopes.
The overwhelming majority follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, delete_*. It is only held back by a few naming outliers such as config_diff and default_endpoint_template, which break the verb-first convention.
78 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface, even accounting for the broad management/relay domain. Such a large surface will overwhelm model context and make tool selection materially harder; this would be better split into focused servers for configuration, data-plane operations, and billing.
The tool surface is very thorough: projects, lines, endpoints, credentials, keys, configs/drafts, DLQ, requests, metrics, audit, team, and billing are all represented. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-line get/update and the intentional inability to widen the outbound allowlist or lift archive protection via API.
