ArchiveBox API

Patch archiveresult

archivebox_patch_archiveresult

Append or replace output files on an archive result and update its status, output text, or structured output.

Instructions

PATCH /api/v1/core/archiveresult/{archiveresult_id}

Append or replace output files on an archive result and update its status, output text or structured output.

Args: archiveresult_id: The archive result id. status: New status. output_str: New output text. output_json: New structured output as a JSON string. files: Output path -> base64 content to add or replace.

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": {
      "archiveresult_id": "<archiveresult_id>"
    },
    "name": "archivebox_patch_archiveresult"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`files`	No
`status`	No
`output_str`	No
`output_json`	No
`archiveresult_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.6.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds partial-update semantics ('new' values, append-or-replace for files) and the content encoding for file payloads, but says nothing about permissions/auth, what a non-idempotent re-PATCH does to existing files, or whether the updated result is returned.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and precise, and the Args block is compact with one line per parameter. The opening HTTP method/route line is redundant boilerplate that does not earn its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a five-parameter mutation with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, every parameter's meaning, and the mutated fields. Remaining gaps (return value shape, error behavior, auth requirements) are modest but real for a write tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely does: it documents all five parameters, clarifying that files is a path -> base64 content map, output_json is a JSON string, and the other fields are optional 'new' values. It omits that archiveresult_id is the only required field, but the schema still conveys that structurally.

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+resource: 'Append or replace output files on an archive result and update its status, output text or structured output,' which clearly separates it from read siblings like archivebox_get_archiveresult and write siblings like archivebox_create_archiveresult. The raw 'PATCH /api/v1/core/archiveresult/{archiveresult_id}' line is endpoint trivia rather than added clarity.

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?

Usage is implied by 'update its status, output text or structured output' and by the append-or-replace filing semantics, but it never says when to patch an existing result versus creating one with archivebox_create_archiveresult or ingesting via archivebox_ingest_archiveresults. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no explicit alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server