Clink MCP Server

archive_project

Archive a project to hide it from default views while preserving it for potential reopening later. This tool helps manage project visibility in collaborative workflows.

Instructions

Archive a project. Archived projects are hidden from default views but can be reopened later. Cannot archive the default project.

    Args:
        project_id: The project 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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "archive_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jan 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that archiving hides projects from default views but preserves them for reopening, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this operation requires specific permissions, if it's reversible only through 'reopen_project', or any rate limits or side effects.

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 description is appropriately sized with two main sentences and a parameter section. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides important behavioral context, and the Args section documents parameters. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose, though the parameter documentation could be integrated more seamlessly.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple single parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, key behavioral traits, parameter meaning, and an important constraint. However, it could benefit from mentioning permission requirements or linking to the 'reopen_project' sibling tool for reversibility context.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents the single parameter 'project_id' with a clear explanation in the Args section, adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. This fully addresses the parameter documentation gap.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'archive' and resource 'project', specifies that archived projects are hidden from default views but can be reopened later, and explicitly distinguishes it from the default project which cannot be archived. This provides specific functionality and differentiation from sibling tools like 'complete_project' or 'reopen_project'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to archive a project) and includes an important exclusion (cannot archive the default project). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternatives like 'complete_project' or 'reopen_project', or provide guidance on prerequisites such as required permissions.

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