Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Archiware MCP

Archiware MCP

by mnott
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

tape_erase

Erases tapes in specified slots by rewinding and running a short erase, destroying all contents; requires confirm:true and refuses known volumes unless eraseKnown is enabled.

Instructions

DESTRUCTIVE: short-erases tapes in the given slots (rewind + mt erase 0) — this DESTROYS all contents on them. One tape at a time, reported per slot; a bad tape reports an I/O error and is still rewound+unloaded. Refuses tapes P5 still knows as a volume (or whose barcode is unknown) unless eraseKnown:true; the preview lists them under refused. 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": {
      "slots": "<slots>"
    },
    "name": "tape_erase"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNoOverride the busy-library check
slotsYesSlot numbers to erase, e.g. [14]
confirmNoMust be true to actually run
eraseKnownNoErase tapes P5 still knows as a volume (or with unknown barcode); default false = refuse

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it flags DESTRUCTIVE and that all contents are destroyed, discloses per-slot processing ('One tape at a time'), the failure mode for a bad tape (I/O error yet still rewound and unloaded), the refusal rule and the `refused` preview list, and the confirm gate. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The dangerous trait is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining sentences each add a distinct operational fact. It is dense with em-dashes and nested parentheticals, which slightly hurts scanability, but there is no filler sentence.

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 destructive, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers destruction scope, confirmation, refusal logic, and per-slot reporting. It omits the overall response shape for a multi-slot call and any partial-failure aggregation, which leaves a small gap given how much consequence rides on the call.

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 description coverage is 100%, so confirm, eraseKnown, force, and slots are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates those meanings rather than adding new syntax or format detail. The only marginal addition is that refused tapes appear under `refused` in the preview, which is genuinely useful but thin; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource plus the underlying mechanism: 'short-erases tapes in the given slots (rewind + mt erase 0)'. This is unmistakably distinct from sibling operations like tape_load, tape_unload, or tape_export, so an agent can select it without opening the 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?

Preconditions are stated precisely: 'Requires confirm:true', refuses tapes P5 still knows as a volume or with unknown barcode unless eraseKnown:true, and force overrides the busy-library check. What's missing is explicit routing guidance naming the alternative (e.g. when to use tape_unload or a preview/dry-run path instead), so it stops short of a 5.

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