archivebox_get_archiveresultRetrieve a specific ArchiveResult by ID or abid to inspect its archiving outcome and details via the ArchiveBox API.
Get a specific ArchiveResult by id or abid
Args: archiveresult_id: The ID or abid of the ArchiveResult.
Returns: Response: The response object from the GET request.
Raises: ParameterError: If the provided parameters are invalid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| archiveresult_id | 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds limited context: it reports a ParameterError for invalid parameters and says the return is the GET response object, but it does not describe auth, rate limits, or response shape.
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?
The key purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args/Returns/Raises structure is easy to scan. The Returns line is somewhat tautological ('The response object from the GET request'), but overall the definition is appropriately sized.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with annotations, this is close to sufficient. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain the returned ArchiveResult fields or structure, and the error behavior is only minimally described.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify that archiveresult_id accepts either 'id or abid', which adds value beyond the schema's plain string type, but it does not explain the distinction or provide format examples.
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?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Get a specific ArchiveResult by id or abid.' This distinguishes it from a bulk list operation, though it does not explicitly name the sibling archivebox_get_archiveresults as the alternative.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'specific ArchiveResult by id or abid' – an agent can infer this is for fetching one known record. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus archivebox_get_archiveresults, archivebox_get_any, or related lookup tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.