Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Archiware MCP

Archiware MCP

by mnott
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

create_plan

Creates a backup plan and returns its ID, with optional retention in days; requires confirm:true to run.

Instructions

Creates a backup plan (returns its id); optional retention in days. Requires confirm:true.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
confirmNoMust be true to actually run
retention_daysNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that an id is returned and that confirm gates execution, but leaves out permissions required, whether confirm:false is a no-op or dry run, side effects such as schedules or folders created, and reversibility.

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?

Two compact clauses, verb-first, with the return value in a parenthetical and the hard precondition last. Nothing is padded and there is no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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, no output schema, and a third of parameters undocumented, this is thin. The id return and confirm gate help, but an agent still lacks the information needed to know what a plan contains or how confirm:false behaves.

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?

Schema coverage is 33%: confirm is already documented in the schema, so repeating it adds nothing, but "optional retention in days" adds optionality and units beyond minimum:0. The required name parameter gets no explanation of content or constraints, so the gap is only partially closed.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: "Creates a backup plan," and it adds the return value (its id). An agent can separate it from siblings like delete_plan or enable_plan, though it never explicitly contrasts with set_plan_retention even though it also touches retention.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the verb: create a new plan when one doesn't exist. It states one real prerequisite ("Requires confirm:true") but gives no when-not guidance, no mention of dryrun_plan as an alternative, and no clarification of what confirm:false does.

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