Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Archiware MCP

Archiware MCP

by mnott
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

enable_plan

Enables a backup plan so its scheduled events run. Requires confirm:true to execute; otherwise returns the command that would run.

Instructions

Enables a backup plan so its events run on schedule. Requires confirm:true; without it only the command that WOULD run is returned.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "enable_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPlan id
confirmNoMust be true to actually run

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the most important trait — a confirm gate that degrades into a preview of the command that WOULD run — but says nothing about permissions, whether re-enabling an already-enabled plan errors, or 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 short sentences, effect stated first and the confirm constraint second; nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the definition covers the one non-obvious behavior (the confirm gate) adequately. Remaining gaps — permissions and behavior on an already-enabled plan — are small but real.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns a bump by explaining the consequence of omitting confirm (the command is returned rather than executed), which the schema's terse "Must be true to actually run" only hints at.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Enables a backup plan") plus the resulting effect ("so its events run on schedule"), which is enough to distinguish it from disable_plan or plan_event. It stops short of naming a sibling to route against, so it is clear but not differentiated explicitly.

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?

The confirm:true requirement implies the tool can be used as a dry run, which is useful usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance (e.g., versus dryrun_plan or what to do if the plan is already enabled).

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