Archive an initiative by providing its ID, removing it from active project lists to keep workflows organized and focused.
Archive an initiative
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| initiativeId | Yes | The ID of the initiative to archive |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action name. It fails to explain consequences like reversibility or impact on related entities.
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?
While short, the description is under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness; valuable context is missing.
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?
Given the destructive nature and presence of an output schema, the description should explain the archive effect, return value, and any prerequisites. It fails to do so.
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 coverage is 100% and the description adds no extra meaning to the single parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 is a tautology: 'Archive an initiative' restates the tool's name without adding any specifics about what archiving entails or how it differs from other archive tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like linear_archiveProject or linear_archiveRoadmap. The user must infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.