Keelen

archive_project

Destructive

Archive a project (reversible shelve) — frees a project slot in-tool.

Stops any in-flight machine, then flips the project to `archived`: it drops
out of the per-tier project cap (freeing a slot for a new project) and the
loop stops dispatching it, but the project + its history are kept and can be
restored from the dashboard project page. Stopping a machine DESTROYS the
running process state — restoring the project later cannot bring that
execution back, so this is destructive despite being reversible. A replay on
an already-archived project changes no row, but is not idempotent end to end.
Prefer this over `delete_project` unless you specifically want the project
gone. Owner-scoped (an MCP key is owner-only); a project not in the
workspace 404s.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains that stopping a machine destroys running process state and that restoration cannot recover it, that the operation is destructive despite being reversible, and nuances about replay not being idempotent. It also covers access scoping and 404 behavior. These are not present in the annotations and are critical for the agent to avoid misuse.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence contributes. It opens with a clear one-line purpose, then logically elaborates on effects, destructiveness, idempotency, and alternatives. No fluff or redundancy; the structure supports quick parsing.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the single parameter, the annotations covering destructive and idempotent hints, and an output schema (which is assumed to define the return), the description covers all necessary operational aspects: side effects on machine state, slot freeing, restoration path, destructive nature, replay behavior, and access restrictions. An agent can confidently decide when and how to call this tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description must clarify the parameter. It implies project_id refers to a project in the workspace and adds that it must be owner-scoped and that a non-workspace project 404s. Though it does not explicitly define project_id as the identifier, the context makes it clear. This adds useful constraints beyond the bare schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action: 'Archive a project (reversible shelve)' and explains the specific outcome of freeing a project slot. It distinguishes this from delete_project by explicitly naming the alternative and contrasting the behaviors. No ambiguity or tautology.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly instructs when to use this tool over delete_project: 'Prefer this over delete_project unless you specifically want the project gone.' It also provides operational constraints: owner-scoped and a 404 if the project is not in the workspace, which helps the agent decide if the call is appropriate.

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

All Keelen 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.