ArchiveBox API

Get machines

archivebox_get_machines

Read-onlyIdempotent

List ArchiveBox machines (workers) that have run archiving, with filters for hostname, OS platform, architecture, container or VM status, and binary providers.

Instructions

GET /api/v1/machine/machines

List the machines (workers) that have run archiving.

Args: id: Machine id. hostname: Hostname. os_platform: OS platform. os_arch: CPU architecture. hw_in_docker: Running in a container. hw_in_vm: Running in a VM. bin_providers: Binary providers. 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_machines"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`page`	No
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`os_arch`	No
`hostname`	No
`hw_in_vm`	No
`os_platform`	No
`hw_in_docker`	No
`bin_providers`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.6.0Nov 7, 2026

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, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the underlying REST route; it does not say whether filters combine as AND or OR, whether matching is exact or substring, what the default ordering is, or how the paginated response is shaped.

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 readable, but the raw 'GET /api/v1/machine/machines' line is transport noise for an MCP agent, and the Args block largely duplicates parameter names already present in the schema.

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 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the definition should explain what a machine record contains, whether an empty result means no workers have run, and how paging works. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to construct or interpret filtered calls confidently.

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 coverage is 0% and all 10 parameters have no schema descriptions, so the description carries the full burden — yet most glosses are tautological restatements ('id: Machine id', 'hostname: Hostname', 'limit: Page size'). Only a few ('hw_in_docker: Running in a container', 'os_arch: CPU architecture', 'bin_providers') add real meaning, and the interaction between page/limit/offset and the matching semantics of the filter fields is left unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'List the machines (workers) that have run archiving' — which is unambiguous and distinguishable from the singular archivebox_get_machine sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 list tool versus archivebox_get_machine, archivebox_get_current_machine, or archivebox_get_binaries; the only signal is the raw REST path. The agent must infer that plural listing plus optional filters is the reason to pick this tool.

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

Deploy Server