Archive a SplitLaunch project and return the archived project. The public pixel stops serving experiments and accepting new events for that project, while historical usage and reports remain stored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | Required project ID. Use projects_list or projects_get first when the user has not provided it. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides specific behavioral details beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it clarifies that public pixel stops serving experiments and accepting new events, but historical data remains stored. This adds valuable context about what the tool does and does not destroy.
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 very concise: two sentences that immediately convey the action and consequences. No unnecessary words, each sentence adds value.
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?
The description explains the return value and behavioral effects well. Given no output schema, it covers the essential context. Minor omission: no mention of idempotency or error states, but acceptable for a simple tool.
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 input schema already covers the parameter description 100% with guidance on obtaining the projectId. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Archive a SplitLaunch project'), the return value ('return the archived project'), and the effect on the project ('stops serving experiments and accepting new events...'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like experiments_archive by focusing on the project level.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like projects_delete or projects_update. However, the input schema provides guidance for the projectId parameter ('Use projects_list or projects_get first'), implying a prerequisite but not comparative usage.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action combination (e.g., domains_add, experiments_create, goals_deactivate, reports_experiment_chart). There is no overlap or ambiguity; even the three report tools serve clearly different purposes (totals, time-series, channel breakdown).
The vast majority of tools follow a resource_action snake_case pattern (domains_add, experiments_list). A couple deviate (billing_portal, usage_summary) but still place the resource first, making the pattern predictable and easy to parse.
With 23 tools covering projects, domains, experiments, goals, reports, billing, health, and usage, the count is well-scoped for a split-testing platform. Each tool addresses a specific need without ballooning into excessive granularity.
The tool surface provides CRUD-like operations for core entities (projects, experiments, goals, domains) and essential report types. Minor gaps exist (no goal update tool, no experiment delete—only archive) but these are reasonable trade-offs for the domain.
