ArchiveBox API

Get binaries

archivebox_get_binaries

Read-onlyIdempotent

List ArchiveBox capture binaries such as Chromium, wget, and yt-dlp with their install status, and filter results by name, provider, version, machine, or status.

Instructions

GET /api/v1/machine/binaries

List the capture binaries (chromium, wget, yt-dlp, ...) and their status.

Args: id: Binary id. name: Binary name. binprovider: Provider (apt, pip, npm, env, ...). status: Install status. machine_id: Machine id. version: Version. limit: Page size. offset: Page offset. page: Page number.

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_get_binaries"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`page`	No
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`status`	No
`version`	No
`machine_id`	No
`binprovider`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.6.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 that results are filterable capture-binary records with install status and exposes the underlying REST path, but says nothing about auth requirements, default page size behavior, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan, but the leading 'GET /api/v1/machine/binaries' line is implementation noise for an agent, and several Args entries are near-tautologies ('id: Binary id.', 'name: Binary name.') that consume space without adding meaning.

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?

For a 9-parameter filtered list tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify result shape and pagination semantics and how it differs from its many siblings; it does none of these. The annotations cover safety, but an agent still lacks what it needs to call this correctly versus adjacent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, and it partially meets it by glossing each field and giving provider examples (apt, pip, npm, env) plus clarifying limit/page/offset as paging controls. It still doesn't say whether filters are exact-match or substring, or how page and offset interact when both are supplied.

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 and resource: 'List the capture binaries (chromium, wget, yt-dlp, ...) and their status,' which is concrete and easy to match against a need. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like archivebox_get_binary (single) or archivebox_get_binaries_by_name, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The word 'List' implies bulk retrieval, but with siblings such as archivebox_get_binaries_by_name and archivebox_get_binary present, the description leaves the routing decision entirely to inference.

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

Deploy Server