archive_noteMove a note to 99-Archive with a dated filename and reason header, preventing hard deletion of vault content.
Move a note to 99-Archive/ with a dated filename and a header recording why -- nothing in the vault is ever hard-deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vault | No | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| relative_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the target folder, the dated-filename renaming, the added header, and the no-hard-delete guarantee. It omits what happens to backlinks/links, whether the note stays indexed, and permission requirements, so it is useful but incomplete.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and its most important trait (no hard deletion) with zero wasted words.
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?
The output schema means return values need no explanation, and the core operation is described. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the definition leaves path/vault semantics and link-handling behavior undocumented for an agent to infer.
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 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'reason' (the header recording why); relative_path and vault are entirely unexplained, leaving the schema to speak for itself with no help.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (move a note), the destination (99-Archive/), and the transformation (dated filename plus a why-header). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like delete_node. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands just below the top band.
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 clause 'nothing in the vault is ever hard-deleted' implies this is the non-destructive alternative to a delete, but the description never explicitly says when to archive versus delete_node or other mutation siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.