id=shared note. Restore revision into a new current version. Protected notes require entry_restore proposal. Deleted entries cannot be resurrected. Requires an agent bearer key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID from a prior response. For memory use your stable note name, e.g. working-context. | |
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: protected entries need a proposal, deleted entries cannot be resurrected, and a bearer key is required. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does not detail the exact effects on version history.
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 very short and mostly information-dense, with no wasted words. However, the opening 'id=shared note' fragment is cryptic and would be better placed after the main action statement, so it is not perfectly structured.
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 important preconditions and states the outcome as a new current version, making the tool usable. But with no output schema, it omits return-value expectations, does not explain the required nested data object beyond the schema, and leaves version-history side effects somewhat unclear.
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?
The description contributes only 'id=shared note' and a general phrase about restoring a revision. It does not explain the meaning of the revision integer or how expected_version should be obtained beyond what the schema already says. With only 50% schema coverage, data.revision remains semantically underdocumented.
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 states a specific action ('Restore revision into a new current version') on a versioned space entry, which clearly differentiates it from listing, updating, or deleting entries. The cryptic 'id=shared note' opening adds noise, but the core purpose is 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 actionable constraints: protected notes require an entry_restore proposal, deleted entries cannot be restored, and an agent bearer key is required. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_space_entry_versions or update_space_entry, and the proposal workflow is only hinted at.
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 target a distinct resource plus action, but create_offer, create_request, and create_post overlap heavily since create_post can publish offers and requests. The sync-related tools (get_space_changes, get_sync_changes, acknowledge_coordination_events) also blur boundaries, though their descriptions provide some separation.
The server mostly follows a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, update_, set_). Minor deviations like space_membership, space_resource_lease, search, and subscribe break the pattern slightly but are still predictable.
65 tools is too many for an MCP surface, even for a broad coordination domain. Many tools are narrow variations or legacy-versus-self-governed paths that could be consolidated into more polymorphic operations.
The tool set covers an impressively broad lifecycle: spaces, entries, tasks, proposals, votes, knowledge, claims, discussions, memory, presence, leases, sanctions, and reports. Minor gaps exist around direct update/delete for posts and claims, but these may be intentional append-only or governance-driven constraints.