UseHourly

Archive a client

archive_client

Idempotent

Hide a client from lists without deleting their logged time or invoices.

Instructions

Hide a client from the lists. Its time and invoices are kept.

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": {
      "client": "<client>"
    },
    "name": "archive_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`client`	Yes	Client id or exact client name

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`archived`	Yes	The client's name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: related time entries and invoices are retained, which tells the agent this is a reversible-looking soft-hide rather than a cascade delete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the visibility effect is front-loaded and the data-retention caveat follows immediately. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey scope and side effects, which it does. The one gap is that it never says whether the archive can be undone, and no unarchive_client sibling exists to fall back on.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'client' parameter is documented there as an id or exact client name. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Hide') and resource ('a client'), plus the effect on visibility ('from the lists'). It implicitly distinguishes archiving from deletion by stating data is preserved, though it never names a sibling such as delete_entry or archive_project.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the right call when a client should be removed from view without losing data. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of how this differs from update_client or whether it can be reversed.

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