Archive a Slack channel by submitting its channel ID, which removes the channel from active collaboration while preserving its contents.
Archive a Slack channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | Channel ID to archive |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Archive' indicates a state-changing operation, but the description does not mention permissions, reversibility, effects on messages, or response behavior. For a mutation with zero annotation coverage, more transparency would be expected.
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?
The description is an extremly concise single sentence that states the action and object in five words. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and no unnecessary background. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the core invocation is clear: provide a channel ID and archive it. However, the absence of annotations means the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it omits side effects, permissions, and return value expectations. This is adequate for a low-complexity task but not fully complete.
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%, and the one parameter `channel` is already documented as 'Channel ID to archive' in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Archive a Slack channel,' which unambiguously identifies the operation. There is no sibling tool that archives, so this clearly differs from the other channel-management and messaging tools.
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?
The description implies usage: use this tool when you want to archive a Slack channel. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative routing guidance. The action is simple enough that the implication is mostly sufficient, but there is no explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.