ArchiveBox API

Cli search

archivebox_cli_search

Search archived snapshots by keyword, URL, tag, status, or date and export matching results as JSON, HTML, or CSV for reporting and analysis.

Instructions

POST /api/v1/cli/search

Search the archive index and export the matches (JSON, HTML or CSV).

Args: after: Only snapshots bookmarked after this Unix time. before: Only snapshots bookmarked before this Unix time. filter_type: How filter_patterns match (exact, substring, domain, regex, tag, search). filter_patterns: Patterns to match. status: Only snapshots with this status. url__icontains: URL contains. url__istartswith: URL starts with. tag: Only snapshots with this tag. crawl_id: Only snapshots of this crawl. limit: Maximum snapshots. sort: Sort field. search: Full-text search. as_json: Export as JSON. as_html: Export as HTML. as_csv: Export as CSV with these columns. with_headers: Include headers in the export.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "archivebox_cli_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`tag`	No
`sort`	No
`after`	No
`limit`	No
`as_csv`	No	timestamp,url
`before`	No
`search`	No
`status`	No
`as_html`	No
`as_json`	No
`crawl_id`	No
`filter_type`	No	substring
`with_headers`	No
`url__icontains`	No
`filter_patterns`	No
`url__istartswith`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.6.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile, and the description adds useful context such as the POST endpoint and export formats. However, it does not explain why readOnlyHint is false, whether exporting has side effects, or what the response looks like, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a 16-parameter tool.

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 well structured: an endpoint line, a purpose sentence, and a compact Args block. It is appropriately sized for 16 parameters and avoids fluff, though the raw POST path is somewhat redundant with the tool name and the purpose sentence could be front-loaded more prominently.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Inputs are reasonably covered despite the 0% schema description coverage, but there is no output schema and the description says almost nothing about the returned structure, pagination, or export response shape. For a search-and-export tool with 16 optional parameters, this is adequate but incomplete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for 16 parameters. It does document every parameter with at least a brief semantic note, including filter_type values; the main gaps are shallow explanations for fields like sort and search and no detail on the as_csv column string format.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Search the archive index and export the matches (JSON, HTML or CSV)." This is clear enough to distinguish it from generic snapshot retrieval, but it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as archivebox_get_snapshots or archivebox_get_tag_snapshots_jsonl.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling search/list tools. An agent must infer from the name and filter parameters that this is for filtered archive search and export.

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

Deploy Server