Skip to main content
Glama

Morpha

by ai.morphareels

restore_version

Load a saved version over the live project. Accepts either the version's UUID id or the v<N> shorthand (e.g. "v6" finds the bookmark with version_number=6); auto-snapshots are addressable by UUID only. Without page_index this replaces the ENTIRE project (every page) — an auto checkpoint named before restore: … is saved first whenever the current state has unsaved changes, so the overwritten state stays recoverable. With page_index it restores ONLY that page: the page is matched across versions by its stable id and replaced verbatim (canvas size and name included); other pages are untouched and the write is compare-and-swapped against concurrent edits. Errors if the version predates that page — restore the whole version instead. A restored page may reference assets deleted since the snapshot; those render as missing. An open editor reconciles the result into the live project within a few seconds — no refresh needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesProject to restore into.
versionIdYesVersion to restore. UUID `id` or `v<N>` shorthand (partner-facing bookmark number).
page_indexNoOptional. 0-based index into the project's CURRENT pages (same indexing as select_page / delete_page). Restores only that page from the version; omit to restore the whole project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains the auto-snapshot safety net, compare-and-swap concurrency handling, the error case, missing-asset rendering, and editor reconciliation. This is exemplary transparency for a destructive operation.

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?

The description is long but every sentence delivers operationally relevant information. The primary action is front-loaded, and the page_index distinction, safety checkpoint, concurrency guarantee, error condition, and reconciliation behavior are each covered without redundancy. The density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive restore operation with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers scope of effect, recoverability, concurrency, failure modes, post-restore asset issues, and live-editor behavior. There is no major gap that would leave an agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description significantly expands on parameter meaning. It clarifies that versionId accepts either a UUID or v<N> shorthand, that auto-snapshots are UUID-only, and that page_index uses stable page matching rather than positional matching across versions. These semantics are not inferable from the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Load a saved version over the live project.' It clearly distinguishes between restoring the entire project versus a single page, and the sibling set (save_version, list_versions, delete_version, rename_version) makes the action unambiguous. The two modes are both accurately captured.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives detailed when-to-use guidance for the page_index parameter: omit it to replace the whole project, include it to restore only that page. It also explains the error condition for versions that predate a page and advises restoring the whole version instead. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling alternatives, but the behavioral guidance within the tool is clear enough.

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

All Morpha toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set has several clusters that overlap conceptually: add_keyframe/add_keyframes/set_keyframes_batch, move_band/move_layer/shift_group/set_group_window, and fade_layer/set_layer_transition/set_layer_visible all target similar actions. However, each tool's description is distinct and detailed enough for an agent to disambiguate after careful reading. The sheer volume of 95 tools still creates meaningful selection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, remove_, set_, list_, rename_, create_, delete_), which is predictable and readable. Minor inconsistencies exist: plural variants like add_keyframes vs add_keyframe, mixed specificity like remove_keyframe vs remove_color_keyframe, and a few oddballs like reid_project and clip_processing_status. Overall the pattern is strong and helps navigation.

Tool Count2/5

95 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and will overwhelm agents; even a comprehensive video editor could consolidate keyframe batch operations, overlay/track manipulations, and page/group window controls. Many tools are highly specific (reid_project, safe_zones, move_band) and place burden on the agent to pick among near-synonym verbs. While the broad domain justifies many operations, this count is excessive for a coherent tool surface.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers a broad editing lifecycle: layers, keyframes, text, captions, audio, pages, groups, versions, projects, workspaces, and collections, including batch operations. However, there is no MCP tool to render/export the final MP4 (explicitly delegated to an SDK) and no upload_video tool for bringing in a clip file, leaving major end-to-end gaps. For the stated purpose of building and editing videos, these are significant omissions that force agents to stop short of delivery.

Resources