POST /rooms/:roomID/archive — Archive a room
Archive a room — hides it from the inbox sidebar without unsubscribing. Use unarchive to bring it back. Access: the caller must be a member/subscriber. Idempotent.
⚠️ WRITE operation: this mutates your DC account data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roomID | Yes | Room ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses that this is a WRITE operation that mutates data, is idempotent, and requires membership. It explains the behavioral effect (hide from inbox sidebar) but could additionally note what data exactly is changed.
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 extremely concise with four short sentences, each adding critical information. It uses formatting (bold, emoji) to highlight access and WRITE nature, and front-loads the main action.
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 tool with one parameter, the description covers the action, effect, side effects (idempotent), access requirement, and reversal operation. No gaps are present given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.
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% (roomID 'Room ID'), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 verb 'Archive' and the resource 'a room', with the specific effect of hiding from inbox sidebar without unsubscribing. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'rooms_unarchive_create' by explicitly mentioning unarchive.
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 explicit guidance on when to use (to hide from inbox sidebar without unsubscribing), access requirements (must be a member/subscriber), and the reverse operation (use unarchive). It also notes idempotency.
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.
Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.
85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.
The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.
