oneguard_secrets_archiveArchive a secret to remove it from active view while preserving it for future reference. Requires user confirmation before execution.
Archives a secret. It stops appearing as active but is not deleted. Confirm with the user before calling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vault | Yes | Vault id or its 8-character prefix. | |
| secret | Yes | Secret id or its 8-character prefix. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds the key nuance that archiving is a soft deactivation, not a hard deletion, and that explicit user confirmation is required. This is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not address reversibility or permission requirements.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler; the main action and the critical caveats are front-loaded. 'It stops appearing as active but is not deleted' and 'Confirm with the user before calling' both earn their place. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
For a two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the essential semantics of archiving and the user-confirmation requirement. It does not state whether the action is reversible or what the response looks like, but these are secondary for this simple operation.
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?
The input schema covers both parameters with meaningful descriptions, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description opens with the specific verb 'Archives' and the target 'a secret', and clarifies the state change by saying it stops appearing as active but is not deleted. This directly distinguishes the tool from the sibling oneguard_secrets_delete. The wording is specific enough for an agent to know what the tool does.
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?
The only usage instruction is 'Confirm with the user before calling,' which is a useful prerequisite but not an explicit when-to-use decision. It does not name alternatives such as oneguard_secrets_delete or oneguard_secrets_edit, nor does it state when archiving is preferable. The 'not deleted' wording weakly implies a contrast with deletion, but usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.