ArchiveBox API

Create archiveresult

archivebox_create_archiveresult

Create or update an archive result captured outside the server, such as evidence from another web connector, filed under a snapshot and plugin with optional output files and structured JSON.

Instructions

POST /api/v1/core/archiveresults

Create (or update) an archive result produced outside the server, for example evidence captured by another web connector, with optional output files.

Args: snapshot_id: The snapshot the result belongs to. plugin: Plugin name to file the result under. output_str: Output summary text. hook_name: Hook name (server default when omitted). status: Result status (default succeeded). output_json: Structured output as a JSON string. files: Output path -> base64 content, written under the plugin dir.

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": {
      "snapshot_id": "<snapshot_id>",
      "plugin": "<plugin>"
    },
    "name": "archivebox_create_archiveresult"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`files`	No
`plugin`	Yes
`status`	No	succeeded
`hook_name`	No
`output_str`	No
`output_json`	No
`snapshot_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.6.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the create-or-update (upsert) semantics and, importantly, that 'files' entries are written to disk under the plugin directory, which is a side effect the annotations do not convey. Minor tension exists between 'create (or update)' and idempotentHint=false, but it is not a direct contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the endpoint and a one-sentence purpose, then a clean Args list. The raw 'POST /api/v1/core/archiveresults' line is low-value filler for an agent, but overall there is no redundant prose.

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 7-param mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers inputs thoroughly and notes the filesystem side effect. The remaining gap is the return value: it never says what the created ArchiveResult response contains, which matters when there is no output schema.

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

Parameters5/5

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, and it does: every one of the 7 parameters is explained with its role and format, including the server default for hook_name, the 'succeeded' default for status, output_json being a JSON string, and files being a path-to-base64 map written under the plugin dir. That is meaning the bare schema types (string/null/object) do not provide.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair: 'Create (or update) an archive result' at POST /api/v1/core/archiveresults. The qualifier 'produced outside the server, for example evidence captured by another web connector' scopes it meaningfully, but it never names the closest sibling (archivebox_ingest_archiveresults or archivebox_patch_archiveresult), so the boundary with those tools must be inferred.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'produced outside the server, for example evidence captured by another web connector' gives one concrete use case, which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer the ingest or patch siblings, so an agent still has to guess at routing.

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

Deploy Server