Skip to main content
Glama

twining_archive

Archive old blackboard entries by moving them to a file based on timestamp cutoff while preserving decision entries and optionally posting a summary.

Instructions

Archive old blackboard entries. Moves entries older than a cutoff timestamp to an archive file, preserving decision entries. Optionally posts a summary finding.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
beforeNoISO timestamp cutoff — archive entries before this time (default: now)
keep_decisionsNoWhether to keep decision entries in the blackboard (default: true)
summarizeNoWhether to post a summary finding after archiving (default: true)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler for `twining_archive` which delegates to the `archiver` service.
      async (args) => {
        try {
          const result = await archiver.archive(args);
          return toolResult(result);
        } catch (e) {
          if (e instanceof TwiningError) {
            return toolError(e.message, e.code);
          }
          return toolError(
            e instanceof Error ? e.message : "Unknown error",
            "INTERNAL_ERROR",
          );
        }
      },
    );
  • Zod schema definition for `twining_archive` input parameters.
    inputSchema: {
      before: z
        .string()
        .refine((val) => !isNaN(Date.parse(val)), {
          message: "Must be a valid ISO 8601 timestamp",
        })
        .optional()
        .describe("ISO timestamp cutoff — archive entries before this time (default: now)"),
      keep_decisions: z
        .boolean()
        .optional()
        .describe("Whether to keep decision entries in the blackboard (default: true)"),
      summarize: z
        .boolean()
        .optional()
        .describe("Whether to post a summary finding after archiving (default: true)"),
    },
  • Registration of `twining_archive` tool in the MCP server.
    // twining_archive — Archive old blackboard entries
    server.registerTool(
      "twining_archive",
      {
        description:
          "Archive old blackboard entries. Moves entries older than a cutoff timestamp to an archive file, preserving decision entries. Optionally posts a summary finding.",
        inputSchema: {
          before: z
            .string()
            .refine((val) => !isNaN(Date.parse(val)), {
              message: "Must be a valid ISO 8601 timestamp",
            })
            .optional()
            .describe("ISO timestamp cutoff — archive entries before this time (default: now)"),
          keep_decisions: z
            .boolean()
            .optional()
            .describe("Whether to keep decision entries in the blackboard (default: true)"),
          summarize: z
            .boolean()
            .optional()
            .describe("Whether to post a summary finding after archiving (default: true)"),
        },
      },
      async (args) => {
        try {
          const result = await archiver.archive(args);
          return toolResult(result);
        } catch (e) {
          if (e instanceof TwiningError) {
            return toolError(e.message, e.code);
          }
          return toolError(
            e instanceof Error ? e.message : "Unknown error",
            "INTERNAL_ERROR",
          );
        }
      },
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions moving entries to an archive file and preserving decisions, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed, how it affects system state, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is appropriately sized (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, and the second clarifies optional behavior. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (archival mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the archive file is, where it's stored, what format it uses, or what happens to archived entries. For a tool that modifies data without safety annotations, more context is needed.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies 'before' is a cutoff timestamp and mentions the summary option, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Archive old blackboard entries' with specific actions (moves entries to archive file, preserves decision entries, optionally posts summary). It distinguishes from siblings like 'twining_export' or 'twining_prune_graph' by focusing on archival rather than export or graph pruning. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optionally posts a summary finding' but doesn't explain when to enable this or how it differs from the sibling 'twining_summarize'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/daveangulo/twining-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server