archive_pageArchive a Plane page by providing its page ID and optional project ID to keep workspace or project pages organized. Reversible through restore_page.
Archive a page. Archiving is reversible via restore_page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_id | Yes | Page UUID. | |
| project_id | No | Project UUID for a project page; omit for a workspace wiki page. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / page_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Page UUID."Input schema / properties / project_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Project UUID for a project page; omit for a workspace wiki page."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that archiving is reversible and points to restore_page, which is valuable, but it does not explain visibility effects, permission requirements, or what happens to the page after archiving.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, with no filler. The reversibility note earns its place because it is a non-obvious behavioral fact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, the schema is complete, and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, the description lacks any mention of when to choose archiving over deletion and what archiving changes for users, leaving a meaningful contextual gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters completely. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, keeping the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource, 'Archive a page,' and immediately adds the key distinguishing trait: archiving is reversible via restore_page. This helps an agent separate it from permanent deletion tools like delete_page.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use archive_page versus delete_page or other page-mutation siblings. The reversibility note implies when one might prefer archiving, but it is never stated as a usage rule or alternative selection criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.