Archive a Mode Analytics report to hide it from view without deleting it; reverse the change with unarchive_report.
Archive a report, hiding it from view. Reversible with unarchive_report.
This is the safe alternative to delete_report.
Args: report_token: The report to archive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two traits that matter most for a mutation: the report is hidden rather than destroyed, and the operation is reversible via unarchive_report. It does not mention permission requirements, whether scheduled runs/subscriptions are affected, or idempotency, which is why it is not a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Effect and reversibility are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the tool comparison follows immediately. The trailing Args block is largely redundant with the schema, which keeps it out of the top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers effect, reversibility, and the alternative tool. For a single-parameter reversible archive operation this is nearly sufficient; only side effects on dependent runs/schedules and permissions are unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate but instead only restates the property name ('The report to archive'). No hint about token format, where the token comes from (get_report/search_reports), or whether an invalid token errors.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource plus the concrete effect ('hiding it from view'), and explicitly positions itself against siblings unarchive_report and delete_report. An agent can distinguish this from every other report tool in the list 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Clear routing context: reversible with unarchive_report and framed as 'the safe alternative to delete_report', which tells the agent when to prefer it over a destructive delete. It stops short of stating the inverse condition (when archiving is unnecessary or when delete is actually required), so it is strong but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.