archivebox_get_anyRetrieve a specific Snapshot, ArchiveResult, or Tag by abid to inspect archived items or support follow-up management tasks.
Get a specific Snapshot, ArchiveResult, or Tag by abid
Args: abid: The abid of the Snapshot, ArchiveResult, or Tag.
Returns: Response: The response object from the GET request.
Raises: ParameterError: If the provided parameters are invalid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| abid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral note (raises ParameterError on invalid parameters), but 'Response object from the GET request' is a non-statement about behavior and no pagination/error/rate-limit context is offered beyond that single raise clause.
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?
Front-loaded single sentence with the lookup key named up top, followed by brief Args/Returns/Raises blocks. The Returns line is filler, but the overall size is appropriate and non-redundant.
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?
A one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema needs little, and the description is minimally adequate. The notable gap is the abid semantics and the missing rationale for this generic tool versus its type-specific siblings, which is what an agent most needs here.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the abid parameter. It only restates the parameter name/title ('The abid of the Snapshot, ArchiveResult, or Tag') without giving format, expected value shape, or how to obtain an abid, which is the key ambiguity for an opaque identifier.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource set (Snapshot, ArchiveResult, or Tag) qualified by the lookup key (abid), so the agent knows exactly what the call retrieves. It does not, however, explain how this generic tool relates to the more specific siblings (archivebox_get_snapshot, archivebox_get_tag, archivebox_get_archiveresult), leaving the differentiation to inference.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. With dedicated sibling getters for each type, the agent has no stated reason for choosing archivebox_get_any over them, nor any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.