Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Archiware MCP

Archiware MCP

by mnott
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

job

Retrieve detailed status, label, completion, report, and protocol log for a single backup execution by its ID.

Instructions

One job in detail: status, label, completion, full report and protocol log. A job is one execution of a plan/task, tracked by an id.

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": "job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesJob id, e.g. 12482

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned payload fields, which is meaningful since there is no output schema. It says nothing about the read-only nature, behavior for an unknown id, or the potentially heavy size of a 'full report and protocol log' response.

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, return contents front-loaded in a compact list, followed by the minimal domain definition. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both the entity definition and the return fields, which is most of what an agent needs. Gaps remain around sourcing valid ids and handling missing jobs.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete example ('e.g. 12482'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds only the notion that the id tracks a job execution, not where to obtain one.

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?

The description clearly identifies this as a single-job detail lookup and enumerates the content returned (status, label, completion, full report, protocol log), plus defines what a job is. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like job_history, which an agent might equally reach for.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'A job is one execution of a plan/task, tracked by an id' explains the concept but never says when to call this versus job_history or status, nor where the required id comes from. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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