Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

archive_project

DestructiveIdempotent

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. Idempotent. 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable details: it stops in-flight machines, flips status, keeps history, and is reversible. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a bit lengthy but well-structured with clear clauses. It conveys multiple aspects without being redundant. Each sentence adds useful information, so it remains effective.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers what happens (stops machine, flips status), the reversibility, and its relationship to delete_project. It does not mention return values, but that's acceptable given the absence of an output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has one parameter (project_id) with no description, so coverage is low. The description implies it refers to the project to archive, but does not explicitly explain the parameter's semantics or format. More detail would improve clarity.

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) and its effect (frees a project slot, reversible shelve). It distinguishes itself from delete_project by emphasizing reversibility, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Prefer this over delete_project unless you specifically want the project gone', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also explains additional effects (stops in-flight machine, drops out of cap) that help decide when to use.

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

All Keelen toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action duo, even within clusters like request handling or security reviews. The get_ vs run_ pairs are clearly separated, and descriptions explicitly contrast confusing alternatives such as archive_project vs delete_project.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows verb_noun snake_case (submit_request, list_projects, resolve_escalation). The one visible deviation is project_status, which breaks the get_/pattern, and signup is a single-word verb instead of sign_up.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and spans auth, billing, project lifecycle, roadmap, escalations, product documents, and multiple review types. Most tools earn their place, but the surface is too large for one server and would be more coherent split into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The domain coverage is broad: full project lifecycle, request intake/refinement, roadmap manipulation, escalation handling, product doc read/write, and security/legal review flows. Minor gaps exist, most notably no dedicated task-listing or task-update tool, but agents can work around these via project_status and list_escalations.

Resources