Flow Boards MCP Server

archive_tickets

Archive one or more tickets by ID to remove them from active boards and keep your workflow organized.

Instructions

Archive one or more tickets.

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "archive_tickets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes	Ticket IDs to archive

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without clarifying whether archiving is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to the tickets' visibility. These are critical details for a state-changing operation, and the description omits them entirely.

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 a single, direct sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition.

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?

The description is too sparse for a mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema. It does not explain the difference between archiving and deleting, nor does it mention that archived tickets can potentially be restored via restore_tickets. This leaves a significant gap in understanding the tool's effects and relationship to sibling tools.

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 already describes the 'ids' parameter as 'Ticket IDs to archive' (100% schema description coverage). The tool description merely restates 'Archive one or more tickets' without adding any new meaning, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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) and the resource (tickets) with explicit scope ('one or more'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_tickets, move_ticket, and restore_tickets through its unique verb and intent.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use archive_tickets versus alternatives such as delete_tickets, move_ticket, or restore_tickets. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent with no basis for tool selection.

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