archive_projectArchive a Redmine project to close it for new work while preserving its issues and history. Use when you need to retire a project without deleting data.
Archive a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions required, whether archiving is reversible (unarchive_project exists as a sibling), or what happens to the project's issues/time entries. 'Archive' only vaguely implies a mutation.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is good. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economical communication.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for an unannotated mutation tool with a sibling that reverses it, the definition omits reversibility, permission, and side-effect context an agent needs to call it safely.
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 0% and the description adds no meaning for project_id — no format, source, or lookup guidance. The single parameter is only faintly self-explanatory from its name.
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 project'), so the agent knows the operation immediately. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like unarchive_project or delete_project, which are the main confusable alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to archive versus delete or unarchive, and no prerequisites or preconditions mentioned. The agent must infer the correct tool solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.