Archive a vault to make it read-only. Only the vault owner can perform this action.
Archive a vault (makes it read-only). Only the owner can do this.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vault | Yes | Vault name | |
| _vault_skill_ack | No | Opaque acknowledgement returned as vault_skill.ack_token. After applying that guide, retry the unchanged operation with this value. The bundled proxy supplies it automatically. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.14Input schema / properties / _vault_skill_ackAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Opaque acknowledgement returned as vault_skill.ack_token. After applying that guide, retry the unchanged operation with this value. The bundled proxy supplies it automatically.",
+ "maxLength": 128,
+ "type": "string"
+}v2.0.4v2.0.1v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and it does so well by stating both the postcondition (vault becomes read-only) and the authorization requirement (owner-only). It does not mention whether archiving is reversible or what the return value looks like, but the core behavioral traits are clearly disclosed.
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 two short, focused sentences with no filler or repetition of schema content. The action and effect are front-loaded, and the owner restriction is the only additional fact included, which makes it highly efficient.
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 tool with one meaningful required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential selection and invocation details: what the tool does, what state change it causes, and who may call it. The main omissions are reversibility and explicit relationships to sibling tools, but those are not critical for a straightforward mutation call with a single required parameter.
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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-level detail. The vault parameter's meaning is adequately covered by the schema, and while the _vault_skill_ack parameter is documented there too, the tool description does not clarify the 'vault_skill' workflow any further.
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 states a specific action ('Archive'), a clear target ('a vault'), and the key consequence ('makes it read-only'), which distinguishes it from destructive siblings like akb_delete_vault even without naming them. The owner-only restriction adds a precise scope to the operation.
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 effect 'makes it read-only' implies when this tool should be used, and 'Only the owner can do this' establishes a clear precondition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it versus related tools such as transfer_ownership or delete_vault, so the guidance remains somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.