Skip to main content
Glama
Archiware MCP

Archiware MCP

by mnott

plan

Read all available details for one backup configuration, including settings, each schedule event (pool, level, frequency, first run), and each task (client, directories).

Instructions

Everything readable about one backup plan: settings, each event (pool, level, frequency, firstrun) and each task (client, directories). An event is one schedule entry of a plan; a task defines the client and directories to back up.

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": "plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPlan id, e.g. 10004

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully signals that this is a read operation ('readable') and enumerates what is returned (settings, event fields, task fields), but it does not mention permissions, error behavior for missing plans, or whether any side effects occur.

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 focused sentences with no wasted wording. The main scope is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently clarifies the nested event and task concepts.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of listing the returned data categories and defining events and tasks. It could go further by mentioning failure behavior or access requirements, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% for the single id parameter, and the schema already documents it as a plan id with an example. The description does not add further meaning, such as format constraints or lookup behavior, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states that this tool reads all available details for a single backup plan, including settings, events, and tasks. It defines what an event and a task are, which helps distinguish the returned data, but it does not explicitly contrast the tool with siblings such as plan_event.

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?

The definition implies that the tool is used to inspect one plan by id, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.