Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Codecks MCP Server

Codecks MCP Server

by microkorg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

codecks_unarchive_card

Restore archived cards to make them visible again in Codecks project management. Use this to recover accidentally archived cards by providing the card ID.

Instructions

Unarchive a card, making it visible again. Use this to undo an accidental archive.

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": {
      "cardId": "<cardId>"
    },
    "name": "codecks_unarchive_card"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cardIdYesThe card ID to unarchive

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action (unarchive) and purpose (undo accidental archive), but lacks details on permissions required, error conditions, or what 'visible again' entails (e.g., reappearance in lists). It adds some context but is incomplete for behavioral disclosure.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage guidance. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling. It is mostly complete but has minor gaps in transparency.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'cardId' clearly documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('unarchive a card') and the outcome ('making it visible again'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'codecks_archive_card' and 'codecks_get_card'. It precisely identifies the verb (unarchive) and resource (card).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('undo an accidental archive'), providing clear context for its application. This directly addresses the alternative scenario where archiving might have been unintended, guiding the agent effectively.

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