Skip to main content
Glama

archive

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Wayback Check

wayback_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if a URL was archived and retrieve the closest snapshot. Returns capture dates and direct link to the archived version.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to look up (e.g., "https://example.com/some-page")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe queried URL
statusYesStatus code of the snapshot
archivedYesWhether the URL has been archived
timestampYesTimestamp of the closest snapshot
snapshot_urlYesDirect URL to the archived snapshot

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "archived": {
+      "description": "Whether the URL has been archived",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "snapshot_url": {
+      "description": "Direct URL to the archived snapshot",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Status code of the snapshot",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "timestamp": {
+      "description": "Timestamp of the closest snapshot",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "description": "The queried URL",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "url",
+    "archived",
+    "snapshot_url",
+    "timestamp",
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "url": "https://example.com/some-page"
+  },
+  {
+    "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2001/09/11/"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns capture dates and a direct link to the archived version, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes return value information without unnecessary filler.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return value. It does not discuss edge cases like missing snapshots, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% description coverage for the single 'url' parameter, including an example. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs 'check' and 'retrieve' with a clear resource (URL archive snapshot). It also indicates what the tool returns (capture dates and direct link). This clearly distinguishes it from the listed sibling tools, none of which appear to focus on web archive lookups.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage for when a user wants to see if a URL has been archived and obtain the closest snapshot. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear. Since no sibling tool offers this capability, the selection is straightforward.

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

All archive 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research) has significant boundary blurring—ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'—and the six prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have heavily overlapping edge-detection purposes. Only the archive, memory, and subscription families are cleanly delineated.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are consistent family prefixes (ask_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) and clean pluralized lists (list_files, list_subscriptions), but the full set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, search), nouns (entity_profile), and varying patterns (bet_research vs compare_entities, search vs search_within vs recent_changes). Readable in clusters, but no single naming convention binds the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy, and the count is fattened by five distinct product areas—data routing, prediction markets, archive.org access, memory, and subscriptions—that have little to do with each other or with the server name 'archive'. It sits in the 25+ heavy zone even before honoring the mismatch between its name and the sprawl of its purpose.

Completeness3/5

Individual subdomains are well-covered: the memory trio (remember/recall/forget), subscription lifecycle (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts), and archive lineup (search/get_metadata/list_files/wayback_check) are each complete, and extra machinery like pipeworx_feedback and recent_changes shows domain care. But the unifying domain is incoherent—a server named 'archive' that's also a universal data router and prediction-market toolkit—and the scope ends up both bloated and still full of gaps for any one of the intended users (e.g. no archive-item upload, no prediction-market portfolio management).

Resources