Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ArchiveBox API

ArchiveBox API

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get machine

archivebox_get_machine
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve one ArchiveBox machine by ID to inspect its configuration and status.

Instructions

GET /api/v1/machine/machine/{machine_id}

Read one machine.

Args: machine_id: The machine id.

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": {
      "machine_id": "<machine_id>"
    },
    "name": "archivebox_get_machine"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
machine_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.6.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 fully covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the raw endpoint path, omitting behavior such as what happens when the machine_id does not exist or whether authentication/token is required.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence follows the endpoint line immediately, and the Args block is minimal. The raw HTTP path line is redundant for most agents but costs little.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only getter with full annotations and a single trivial parameter, no output schema is needed since the return is implied. The remaining gap is provenance of machine_id and error behavior, which the description does not cover.

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%, so the description is the only place parameter meaning could be added, yet "machine_id: The machine id" is a pure tautology. It does not say where machine ids come from (e.g., archivebox_get_machines) or what format they take.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Read one machine" gives a specific verb and singular resource, which hints at a fetch-by-id operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like archivebox_get_machines (list all) or archivebox_get_current_machine, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this versus archivebox_get_machines or archivebox_get_current_machine, nor any mention of prerequisites such as obtaining a machine_id first. The only signal is the singular resource noun.

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