Skip to main content
Glama
Archiware MCP

Archiware MCP

by mnott

run_tasks_once_cleanup

Deletes a temporary mcp-once-* plan created by run_tasks_once, refusing while any of its jobs is running or pending. Use it with confirm:true to clean up one-off backup plans.

Instructions

Deletes a temporary plan created by run_tasks_once (only plans named mcp-once-*, refused while one of its jobs is running or pending). 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": {
      "plan": "<plan>"
    },
    "name": "run_tasks_once_cleanup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planYesTemporary plan id
confirmNoMust be true to actually run

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses real behavior: the name-prefix restriction and a runtime refusal condition when jobs are running or pending. It does not say whether the deletion is permanent or what a refused call returns, which leaves a modest gap for a destructive operation.

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?

A single sentence with the destructive action and its scope front-loaded, followed by the refusal condition and the confirm gate in a parenthetical. No wasted words.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, eligibility, refusal behavior, and the confirm gate. Only the irreversibility/return behavior is unstated, which is a minor omission.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the confirm:true requirement. It does add one useful constraint on the plan parameter (it must be an mcp-once-* plan), keeping this slightly above bare restatement.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a temporary plan created by run_tasks_once') and narrows scope to plans named mcp-once-*. That scoping distinguishes it from the generic delete_plan sibling without needing to open either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear preconditions for use: only mcp-once-* plans, refused while a job is running or pending, and confirm:true required. It stops short of explicitly naming delete_plan as the alternative for non-temporary plans, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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