restore_file_from_versionRestore one file from a Saved Version instead of restoring the entire app. Creates a Saved Version before changing the file. Paths follow the Fine Structure app file API, documented at https://finestructure.ai/api/mcp/docs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Virtual file path to restore | |
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| confirm | Yes | ||
| snapshot_id | Yes | Saved Version snapshot ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context by stating 'Creates a Saved Version before changing the file,' which informs the agent of an automatic safety backup. It also mentions the path API documentation, but does not explicitly describe overwrite behavior or the confirm parameter, so it does not fully compensate for the lack of annotation detail beyond destructiveHint.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and differentiation, the second adds a critical behavioral detail and a reference to the path API. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and the safety backup, but it omits any explanation of the confirm parameter's role (which is critical for a destructive operation with a default false), the return value, or any additional side effects. Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of an output schema, more detail is warranted to ensure correct invocation.
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 high (75%) with path, app_id, and snapshot_id already documented. The description adds context for the path parameter by referencing the Fine Structure app file API, which is helpful, but it does not elaborate on the confirm parameter (which lacks schema description) or add syntax for others. This is a minor increment over the schema, so a 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Restore one file from a Saved Version instead of restoring the entire app.' It specifies the verb (restore), the resource (one file from a Saved Version), and distinguishes it from restoring the whole app, making it unambiguous.
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 provides clear context: use this tool when you want to restore a single file rather than the entire app. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the differentiation from the whole-app restore is a clear usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are some overlapping pairs like read_app_file/read_app_files and create_entity_records vs seed_entity, which could cause misselection. Singular/plural variants and compatibility tools introduce minor ambiguity, but the majority are well-separated.
Tool names predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_app, get_entities, delete_secret). There are some variations like 'agency_create_client' and 'seed_entity' that deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
With 82 tools, the server is far above the typical range and feels overwhelming. Even for a full platform API, the count is extreme and likely increases selection complexity. A more curated set would improve navigability without sacrificing capability.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering app lifecycle, file operations, entity CRUD, versioning, A/B testing, secrets, integrations, domains, agents, scheduling, policies, and member management. No obvious missing operations for the platform's scope; it even includes validation and workflow guidance tools.