Archive the currently open course item or a specific item by ID to remove it from active content and preserve it for later reference.
Archive the open item or an item id.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "archive_item"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it never says whether archiving is reversible, what happens to an archived item's visibility, whether the item must be published or open first, or what permissions are required. Only the mutating nature of the verb is conveyed.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity: the sentence is too small for the decision it has to support and leaves the fallback behavior ambiguous.
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?
There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral information for a destructive-leaning mutation, and it omits consequences, permissions, and post-conditions. An agent has to guess at the effects of calling it.
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 coverage is 0% and the id field is a bare string, so the description must explain it. It does contribute one genuinely useful fact, that omitting id targets the currently open item, but it never says what an item id looks like, where to obtain one, or what happens if an invalid id is supplied.
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?
"Archive the open item or an item id" gives a verb and a resource, so the basic operation is discernible. But among siblings like archive_course and archive_chapter it never says which object type "item" refers to, and "open item" is undefined jargon an agent cannot resolve without outside knowledge.
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 implicit guidance is that id can be omitted to target "the open item," which is a hint rather than a rule. There is no statement of when to archive versus use remove_item, or when to reach for archive_course or archive_chapter instead, and no preconditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.