Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIWorkhub

AIWorkhub

by shrec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

needfix_archive

Idempotent

Retire a NeedFix from the active inbox with a soft, audited archive that can be restored later.

Instructions

Explicitly archive (soft, audited, restorable) a NeedFix.

Use this to retire a NeedFix from the active inbox; use needfix_restore to bring an archived one back or needfix_update to edit its fields instead.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "needfix_id": "<needfix_id>"
    },
    "name": "needfix_archive"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoOptional free-text reason recorded in the archived audit event; omit if there is none.
needfix_idYesNeedFix id, e.g. NF-2026-01447. A NeedFix that is converting cannot be archived; an already archived one is returned unchanged.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.12.67
    • addedInput schema / properties / needfix_id / description
      Added value: +"NeedFix id, e.g. NF-2026-01447. A NeedFix that is converting cannot be archived; an already archived one is returned unchanged."
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason / description
      Added value: +"Optional free-text reason recorded in the archived audit event; omit if there is none."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description still adds genuinely new context by framing the write as 'soft, audited, restorable', which tells the agent the record survives and the action is logged. What's missing is that the schema, not the description, carries the idempotency nuance ('an already archived one is returned unchanged') and the 'converting cannot be archived' failure case.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler: the first pins down what the operation is and its reversibility, the second routes to alternatives. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema and solid annotations, this covers purpose, reversibility, and sibling routing well. The only gap is return behavior on success versus the already-archived case, which the description leaves entirely to the schema.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only indirectly adds meaning through 'audited', which hints at why a reason is recorded, but it supplies no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('archive ... a NeedFix') and immediately qualifies the scope ('retire a NeedFix from the active inbox'), so an agent can distinguish it from needfix_update, needfix_convert, and needfix_restore without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names both the trigger ('retire a NeedFix from the active inbox') and the alternatives with their selecting conditions: needfix_restore to undo, needfix_update to edit fields. Nothing is left to inference about when this tool is the right choice.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools