jules-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

jules_archive_session

Archive or unarchive a Google Jules session by supplying its session ID. Set unarchive to true to restore, or false to archive.

Instructions

Archive or unarchive a session in Google Jules.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "jules_archive_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`unarchive`	No	If true, unarchives the session; if false, archives it (defaults to false).
`session_id`	Yes	The session ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core mutation action but does not mention side effects, whether the session disappears from lists, permission requirements, or what happens on success/failure. The existence of 'unarchive' implies reversibility but little else is transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the operation and resource with zero wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but there is no output schema or description of return behavior. For an archive operation, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent without context on expected outcomes or edge cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides for session_id and unarchive.

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?

The description uses a specific verb pair (archive/unarchive) with a clear resource (session) and platform (Google Jules). It distinguishes itself semantically from sibling tools like jules_list_sessions or jules_delete_session by indicating a state-changing but reversible operation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions sibling tools nor describes conditions for archiving vs unarchiving beyond the parameter default, which is already in the schema.

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