Archive or unarchive a tracked flight to preserve it in account history without deleting it. Use this to clear active flight lists while keeping past trips accessible.
Archive/unarchive a tracked flight, preserving it in account history. Requires writes enabled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| archived | Yes | ||
| flight_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?
Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the write-gating requirement ('Requires writes enabled') and clarifying that the operation is a reversible, history-preserving state toggle rather than a removal — context the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) don't convey on their own. Minor gap: no statement about what happens if the flight isn't tracked or is already in the requested state.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then the precondition. No filler.
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 two-parameter state-toggle mutation with an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: reversibility, history retention, and the write-gating prerequisite. Nothing critical to correct invocation is absent.
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%, so the description carries the burden. It does explain the semantics of the `archived` boolean via 'Archive/unarchive', but says nothing about `flight_id` beyond 'tracked flight' — an agent must assume it is the same ID returned by get_flight/list_flights.
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?
Specific verb pair (archive/unarchive) applied to a named resource (a tracked flight), plus the scope qualifier 'preserving it in account history' that separates it from destructive siblings like delete_flight. It stops short of naming delete_flight explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
'Preserving it in account history' hints that this is the non-destructive alternative to delete_flight, and 'Requires writes enabled' states a precondition. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.