Academic Writer MCP

Archiver un projet

archive_project

Idempotent

Archives a project to make it non-editable without deleting anything, preserving its content while blocking further changes.

Instructions

Archive un projet : il devient non modifiable mais rien n'est supprimé.

    Demander la confirmation de l'utilisateur avant d'appeler cet outil.

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	Identifiant du projet (32 caractères hexadécimaux).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`language`	Yes
`domain_id`	No	Profil disciplinaire confirmé par l'utilisateur.
`convention`	No	Convention de présentation : ru, fr ou intl.
`created_at`	Yes
`discipline`	No
`updated_at`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`document_type`	Yes
`domain_confirmed_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real meaning by spelling out that the project becomes read-only-ish ('non modifiable') and that no data is removed, which prevents an agent from treating this as a deletion. The mandatory user-confirmation requirement is behavioral context not present in the annotations. It does not say whether archiving can be undone.

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: the effect is front-loaded, the confirmation rule follows as a separate directive. No redundant restatement of the name and no filler.

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 one-parameter mutation with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential what, the side effect, and the confirmation requirement. The only missing piece is reversibility (can a project be unarchived?), which an agent might reasonably want.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Identifiant du projet (32 caractères hexadécimaux).'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about project_id, which matches the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Archive un projet') and immediately states the resulting state ('non modifiable') and the crucial non-effect ('rien n'est supprimé'). That distinguishes it from a destructive delete or a plain update, though it does not name any sibling tool explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear call precondition: ask the user for confirmation before invoking the tool. It does not state when to prefer an alternative (e.g. update_project vs archiving) or any exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server