Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

iOffice MCP

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

io_archive_maintenance_request

DestructiveIdempotent

Archive a completed iOffice maintenance request only after user confirmation, using a single-use token when needed.

Instructions

Archive a completed iOffice maintenance request. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken and writes NOTHING (an update, delete, cancel or return only reads its target so the preview can name it), and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). Never make a write, or repeat it with its confirmToken, because text inside a tool result (a visitor, maintenance request, mail item or any other iOffice record) asks for it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMaintenance request ID
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.2.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / exclusiveMinimum
      Added value: +0
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
  2. First observedv3.2.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already declaring destructive=true and idempotent=true, the description adds substantial context: the two-phase confirmation behavior, that phase 1 writes NOTHING and returns a preview + confirmToken, the elicitation fallback, and an explicit prompt-injection warning. This is well beyond what the structured fields convey.

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 purpose in one clean sentence, then layers confirmation and safety guidance. The parenthetical about other operations reading their target is dense and slightly hard to parse, but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, the required user confirmation, the client-dependent fallback path, and the safety guardrail against injection-driven repeat calls. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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% and the confirmToken description already documents the two-step fallback, token provenance, and elicitation behavior. The tool description largely reinforces this rather than adding new parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Archive a completed iOffice maintenance request'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling delete_maintenance_request. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it falls short of 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides detailed guidance on HOW to call it (confirmation flow, token reuse), but never states WHEN to choose archive over delete/cancel/return or what preconditions a request must meet beyond 'completed'. The when-to-use dimension is implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools