MCP Agent Mail

unarchive_project

Restore an archived project to active status, allowing coding agents to resume coordination, messaging, and file lease management within MCP Agent Mail.

Instructions

Restore an archived project back to active status.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_key": "<project_key>"
    },
    "name": "unarchive_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_key`	Yes
`registration_token`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.4Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the state transition, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens if the project is not archived.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key outcome (active status) front-loaded and no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate, though it comes at the cost of the missing behavioral and parameter detail noted above.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the definition omits too much for an agent to call it confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions either parameter. In particular registration_token hints at an auth/registration requirement that is completely unexplained, and project_key's format is left undefined in both places.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb (restore/unarchive) and resource (project) and states the resulting state change to active status. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling archive_project, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what condition must hold (e.g. project must currently be archived). The inverse relationship with archive_project is left for the agent to infer.

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