Archive a report (soft delete; no MCP restore). DANGER ZONE: confirm with the user that they want to archive this report before calling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Organization slug. Omit to auto-detect from your account (fails if you belong to multiple orgs). | |
| reportId | Yes | Report id to archive. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it specifies that this is a soft delete, that there is no MCP restore, and that user confirmation is mandatory. This complements the destructiveHint annotation without contradicting it.
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 concise and structured effectively: a clear statement of purpose followed by a critical safety warning. Every sentence provides necessary information with no redundancy or fluff.
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 tool's simplicity, the destructive annotation, and complete schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the operation's nature and safety requirements without missing essential context.
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 fully documents both parameters (slug and reportId) with clear descriptions and formats. The description adds no additional parameter insights, so it relies on the schema, which is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 report') and the resource ('report'), and adds clarifying details ('soft delete; no MCP restore') that distinguish it from other destructive tools like delete_tag. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 context for use by flagging a 'DANGER ZONE' and requiring user confirmation before calling. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the safety instruction effectively guides proper 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.
Tools are organized by resource (alerts, dashboards, reports, events, virtual dimensions) with distinct actions, so most are clearly separable. The main confusion risks are the three report-delivery side-effect tools (run_report_now, retry_report_execution, transfer_report_execution) and the generic get that spans five resource types, though detailed descriptions mitigate these.
The dominant verb_noun pattern (create_*, list_*, update_*, preview_*, get_*) is consistent and predictable across the set. Deviations like bare verbs query/search/get and the noun-only virtual_dimension_overlap_matrix are readable but break the otherwise uniform convention.
44 tools is heavy and exceeds the comfortable range, but the server covers a genuinely broad FinOps platform spanning querying, dashboards, reports, alerts, events, virtual dimensions, docs, skills, and suggestions. Each tool has a distinct job, though the sheer count makes agent navigation harder.
Core workflows are well covered: query → dashboard/report/alert/event, plus a full virtual-dimension draft lifecycle. Notable gaps include alerts being create-only with no update/delete, no deletes for dashboards/events/published virtual dimensions, and budget management limited to query/get with no create/update.