Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ArchiveBox API

ArchiveBox API

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get crawl subfolder file

archivebox_get_crawl_subfolder_file
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a specific file two folders deep in a crawl's output directory by supplying the crawl ID, folder, subfolder, and filename.

Instructions

GET /api/v1/crawls/crawl/{crawl_id}/files/{folder}/{subfolder}/{filename}

Read a file two folders deep in a crawl's output directory.

Args: crawl_id: The crawl id. folder: Folder name. subfolder: Subfolder name. filename: File name.

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": {
      "crawl_id": "<crawl_id>",
      "folder": "<folder>",
      "subfolder": "<subfolder>",
      "filename": "<filename>"
    },
    "name": "archivebox_get_crawl_subfolder_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folderYes
crawl_idYes
filenameYes
subfolderYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.6.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 the path-depth semantics of the resource being fetched, but says nothing about what is returned (raw text vs. binary/encoded content), behavior on missing paths, or size limits — meaningful gaps for a file-read endpoint.

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 route and the one-line purpose statement are front-loaded and waste-free. The Args list is short but largely redundant filler rather than earned content.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should clarify the shape of the returned file content and path constraints; it does neither. For a file-serving endpoint where the response type matters, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for all four parameters, so the description must carry the load, yet its Args block only restates the names ("folder: Folder name", "subfolder: Subfolder name"). No format, path-safety rules, allowed values, or examples are given, so it adds almost nothing the schema does not already show.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource — "Read a file two folders deep in a crawl's output directory" — plus the underlying GET route, which makes the operation unambiguous. It stops short of naming how it differs from the near-identical siblings archivebox_get_crawl_file and archivebox_get_crawl_folder_file, leaving the depth distinction to 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 "two folders deep" implies the usage condition relative to the shallower file-reading siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or reference to alternatives. An agent must infer the routing decision from the path shape alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools