Skip to main content
Glama

Archive project

archive_project

Freeze a project and its tasks with a reason, filing an archived case entry. Later changes are refused until the project is restored.

Instructions

Archives a project with a reason and files an archived entry in its case.

The project and its tasks freeze as they are: statuses stay, open tasks need no closing. From then on any change in the project or its tasks — a new task, an entry, a transition, an edit, an attribute, a new link — is refused with project_archived, until restore_project. The one change still accepted is unlink of a link with its task: an open archived task keeps blocking its blocked_by tasks and holding its parent until the link is removed. Reads work as before.

An already archived project is refused with project_archived.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesProject key, case-insensitive. An unknown key is refused with `project_not_found`
reasonYesWhy the project is archived or restored; a blank one is refused with `project_reason_required`. Filed in the `archived` or `restored` entry of the project's case

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noYesNumber of the `archived` or `restored` entry in the project's case
keyYes
archived_atYesWhen the project was archived; `null` once it is restored

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds a great deal beyond the annotations: the freeze semantics, the exact refusal code `project_archived`, the single exception (`unlink` of a task-linked link), and the fact that reads still work. This also clarifies the non-idempotent annotation by stating a repeated archive is refused rather than a no-op.

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?

Front-loads the action and consequence, then details the frozen state and the exception. Three paragraphs is slightly long and repeats `project_archived`, but nearly every sentence carries distinct behavioral information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers preconditions, postconditions, error behavior, and the one surviving mutation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so both `key` and `reason` are already documented with their error codes in the schema. The description adds only the routing context around `reason` being filed in the archived entry, which the schema also states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Archives a project') plus the side effect ('files an `archived` entry in its case'). The closing reference to `restore_project` and the refusal codes make it clearly distinguishable from sibling mutation tools.

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?

Gives strong contextual guidance: what gets frozen, what is refused afterward, and that `restore_project` is the inverse operation. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over other project-mutating siblings, but the preconditions (project must not already be archived) are clear.

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