Skip to main content
Glama

kernel_chat_archive

Archive a chat episode by episode ID to preserve conversation history for later retrieval and future summary embedding generation.

Instructions

Archive a chat episode. In future phases, this also generates a summary embedding.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "episode_id": "<episode_id>"
    },
    "name": "kernel_chat_archive"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
episode_idYesEpisode ID to archive

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it never says whether archiving is reversible, whether the episode is deleted or merely hidden, or what permissions are required. The only extra detail is a forward-looking note about a 'future phase' summary embedding, which describes behavior that does not exist yet and is not actionable.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no verbosity. The second sentence about future phases is borderline noise, but it is brief enough not to obscure the primary purpose.

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?

For a mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the effect of archiving (data retained, visibility change, restorability) and what comes back. It omits all of that, leaving the agent unable to predict consequences of the call.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents episode_id fully. The description adds no extra meaning (format, source, constraints) beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 for fully covered parameters.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource ('Archive a chat episode'), so an agent can tell this is a state-changing operation on an episode rather than a read/query tool like the other kernel_chat_* siblings. It stops short of naming or contrasting any specific sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The agent is left to infer that 'archive' is the right operation when an episode should be retired, and receives no advice about alternatives or preconditions.

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