archive_threadSoft-archive the thread (sets archivedAt). Hidden from the default inbox view; surface again with list_inbox filter=archived. Reverse with unarchive_thread.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threadId | Yes | thread id from list_inbox to archive |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / threadId / descriptionAdded value: +"thread id from list_inbox to archive"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds key behavioral details beyond the idempotentHint annotation: it is a 'soft-archive' (mutates a field), it hides the thread from default view but makes it accessible via a filter, and it is reversible. This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior.
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, consisting of two short sentences that convey all necessary information without any redundant or extraneous text.
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 simple nature of the tool (one parameter, straightforward effect), the description completely and adequately explains the tool's purpose, behavior, and context. No additional information is needed.
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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'threadId' is described in the schema as 'thread id from list_inbox to archive'. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'soft-archive' and the resource 'thread', specifying the effect of setting 'archivedAt'. It distinguishes itself from related tools like 'unarchive_thread' and 'list_inbox'.
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 explains when to use the tool (to hide from default inbox) and how to reverse it with 'unarchive_thread'. It also notes that the thread can be surfaced again with a filter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the reverse operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.