restore_versionRestores a previous version of a site (version_id from list_versions) and publishes it. The current version is saved to history first, so this can be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id or name, e.g. "my-portfolio" or "my-portfolio.hostilo.page" (from list_sites). | |
| version_id | Yes | version_id from list_versions. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / site / descriptionPrevious value: -"Site id or name, e.g. \"my-portfolio\" or \"my-portfolio.hostilo.app\" (from list_sites)."New value: +"Site id or name, e.g. \"my-portfolio\" or \"my-portfolio.hostilo.page\" (from list_sites)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: the current version is saved to history first, so the restore is undoable. It does not mention auth or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the important undo detail.
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?
No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For this two-parameter, non-idempotent, destructive operation, the description covers the action, the prerequisite source for version_id, the publish side effect, and the undo behavior.
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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only repeats that version_id comes from list_versions and does not add syntax or format details beyond that.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Restores a previous version of a site and publishes it.' The parenthetical '(version_id from list_versions)' names a sibling as the source, helping the agent distinguish this from list_versions and update_site.
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?
Implies a prerequisite by telling the agent to get version_id from list_versions, but does not explicitly state when to choose restore_version over alternatives like update_site or publish_files, nor any exclusions.
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.