WebSlop

restore_version

DESTRUCTIVE: Restore an app to a previous version using git reset --hard. This permanently overwrites all current files with the state from the specified commit — any changes made after that commit will be lost and CANNOT be recovered. You MUST confirm with the user before calling this tool. Use list_versions to show the user available versions first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`app`	Yes	App ID (UUID) or subdomain
`hash`	Yes	Commit hash to restore to (from bonto_list_versions)

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive nature: 'permanently overwrites all current files', 'changes made after that commit will be lost and CANNOT be recovered'. It also mandates user confirmation, which is critical for a destructive tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning, every sentence earns its place. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations/output schema, the description covers side effects, irreversibility, user confirmation, and prerequisite action (list_versions). It is fully complete for safe invocation.

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%, with app and hash already well described. The description adds no additional parameter details, but does not need to since the schema fully documents them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'Restore an app to a previous version using git reset --hard', specifying the verb (restore), resource (app), and method (git reset --hard). This differentiates it from sibling tools like git_pull (which updates to latest) and list_versions (which only lists versions).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs when to use the tool and provides prerequisites: 'Use list_versions to show the user available versions first' and 'You MUST confirm with the user before calling this tool'. This gives clear usage context and user-interaction requirements.

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

All WebSlop tools Inspect

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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few pairs could be confused: get_app vs. get_app_status both report on app state, and update_app vs. set_node_version both modify runtime configuration. Descriptions are detailed enough to mitigate most ambiguity, but the overlap is notable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_apps, create_app, delete_file). Minor deviations include the bare verb 'login' and the noun-first 'git_info', which break the pattern slightly but are still understandable.

Tool Count3/5

At 37 tools, the set is on the heavy side, well above the typical 3-15 range. However, the server covers a broad PaaS domain (auth, app lifecycle, file management, packages, versions, git, metrics), and each tool addresses a distinct operation. It feels over-engineered in places but not gratuitously so.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is impressively complete for a deployment platform: authentication, app CRUD, start/stop/restart, file operations (read/write/delete/rename/search/upload), package management, version snapshots and restore, git remote and push/pull, logs, metrics, and configuration. No critical dead-ends are apparent.

Resources

Need Help?