Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EARLY App MCP Server

EARLY App MCP Server

by janfincke
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Archive Activity

archive_activity
Destructive

Archive or delete an activity by its ID to remove it from your time tracking records.

Instructions

Archive or delete an activity

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": {
      "activityId": "<activityId>"
    },
    "name": "archive_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
activityIdYesThe ID of the activity to archive/delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.5
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the action is reversible, whether "archive" is a soft-delete versus permanent removal, or what happens to an archived activity's time entries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short sentence with zero wasted words and the key verb is front-loaded. The brevity crosses into under-specification, though, since the one sentence omits the distinctions the tool actually needs.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description should disclose consequences and reversibility but does not. The single-parameter schema is simple enough, yet the destructive nature makes the missing behavioral detail a real gap.

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 parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains activityId. The description only repeats the resource reference and adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 set ("Archive or delete") and resource ("activity"), so the operation is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as delete_time_entry or update_activity, and it leaves the archive-vs-delete distinction ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives like update_activity or delete_time_entry, and no criteria for choosing between the two operations the name implies. The agent must infer usage entirely from context.

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