Archive a room you own to stop new messages, invites, and joins, or set archived=false to restore it.
Archive a room you own (no new messages, invites or joins), or unarchive it with archived=false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | Identity slug to act as (default: the active identity) | |
| room | No | spaceId or index from huddo_list (default: the default room; using it makes it the default) | |
| archived | No | false to unarchive; default true |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the effects of archiving (no new messages, invites or joins) and that ownership is required, but omits auth/identity details, reversibility beyond the flag, and any return/result information.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that packs the operation, its effects, the ownership constraint, and the inverse-mode flag with no wasted words.
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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers purpose, effects, and the unarchive path adequately. The remaining gap is the lack of explicit routing against sibling tools.
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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the archived flag's meaning ('false to unarchive') without adding syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 (archive a room) and pairs it with the inverse operation via the archived=false flag. It adds the ownership constraint ('a room you own'), but does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling such as huddo_leave, so sibling differentiation is only partial.
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 description implies when to use each mode (archive vs. unarchive via archived=false) but gives no explicit when-not guidance and never names the alternative tools (e.g., huddo_leave) that an agent might confuse this with. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.