Skip to main content
Glama

list_archived_requests

Retrieve and filter archived task requests with metadata and completion details in TaskFlow MCP. Search by text or ID to review past completed work.

Instructions

List archived requests with optional search and filtering capabilities.

Provides an overview of all archived requests with their metadata and completion information.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
searchTermNoOptional search term to filter archived requests by request text or ID
limitNoOptional limit on the number of results to return

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool handler function that extracts searchTerm and limit from arguments and delegates to TaskFlowService.listArchivedRequests.
    async list_archived_requests(args: any) {
      const { searchTerm, limit } = args ?? {};
      return service.listArchivedRequests(searchTerm, limit);
    },
  • Defines the tool's metadata (name, description) and input schema for validation.
    export const LIST_ARCHIVED_REQUESTS_TOOL: Tool = {
      name: "list_archived_requests",
      description:
        "List archived requests with optional search and filtering capabilities.\n\n" +
        "Provides an overview of all archived requests with their metadata and completion information.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          searchTerm: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Optional search term to filter archived requests by request text or ID"
          },
          limit: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Optional limit on the number of results to return"
          },
        },
      },
    };
  • Instantiates the handlers object from taskflowHandlers(service), which includes the list_archived_requests handler, binding it to the service instance.
    constructor(service: TaskFlowService) {
      this.service = service;
      this.handlers = taskflowHandlers(service);
  • Includes LIST_ARCHIVED_REQUESTS_TOOL in the tools list returned by ListToolsRequestHandler for tool discovery.
    ARCHIVE_COMPLETED_REQUESTS_TOOL,
    LIST_ARCHIVED_REQUESTS_TOOL,
    RESTORE_ARCHIVED_REQUEST_TOOL,
  • Implements the core logic: loads the archive file, applies optional search filtering and limit, maps to response format.
    public async listArchivedRequests(searchTerm?: string, limit?: number) {
      const archive = await this.loadArchive();
      
      let archivedRequests = archive.archivedRequests;
      
      if (searchTerm) {
        archivedRequests = archivedRequests.filter(req => 
          req.originalRequest.toLowerCase().includes(searchTerm.toLowerCase()) ||
          req.originalRequestId.toLowerCase().includes(searchTerm.toLowerCase())
        );
      }
      
      if (limit && limit > 0) {
        archivedRequests = archivedRequests.slice(0, limit);
      }
      
      return {
        status: "archived_requests_listed",
        archivedRequests: archivedRequests.map(req => ({
          requestId: req.originalRequestId,
          originalRequest: req.originalRequest,
          tasksCount: req.tasks.length,
          completedAt: req.completedAt,
          archivedAt: req.archivedAt
        })),
        archiveInfo: archive.archiveInfo,
        message: `Found ${archivedRequests.length} archived request(s).`
      };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'overview of all archived requests with their metadata and completion information' which gives some output context, but lacks critical details like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated).

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 description is appropriately concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core functionality with key capabilities, and the second adds context about what information is returned. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list/read tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output content but lacks important behavioral context (pagination, limits, side effects) that would be needed for robust agent usage.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'optional search and filtering capabilities' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the parameter descriptions provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List archived requests' (verb+resource) and mentions 'with optional search and filtering capabilities' which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_requests' (which presumably lists non-archived requests), missing full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'list_requests' or explain when archived vs. active requests should be listed, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/pinkpixel-dev/taskflow-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server