Dayze — Life Context

restore cleanup

restore_cleanup

Restore an archive or normalization receipt. Requires restore_id and request_id. Receipts stay restorable for at least 30 days (archived rows are retained, not purged). Refuses intervening edits; repeats are no-ops. ($0; API key required)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`request_id`	Yes
`restore_id`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No	Alias for request_id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rows`	No
`account`	No	The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.
`changed`	No
`expires_at`	No
`preview_id`	No
`provenance`	No	Which connector wrote the record and which connected Dayze account received it.
`restore_id`	No
`server_time`	No
`candidate_hash`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 3, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / account

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.",
+  "properties": {
+    "display_name": {
+      "description": "Account display name.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "handle": {
+      "description": "Account handle, e.g. @goh.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "description": "How to disclose the account to the user.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "qa_fixture": {
+      "description": "True for a known QA test account: its records are fixture data, not a real life.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "handle",
+    "display_name",
+    "qa_fixture",
+    "note"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / provenance

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Which connector wrote the record and which connected Dayze account received it.",
+  "properties": {
+    "account": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.",
+      "properties": {
+        "display_name": {
+          "description": "Account display name.",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "handle": {
+          "description": "Account handle, e.g. @goh.",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "note": {
+          "description": "How to disclose the account to the user.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "qa_fixture": {
+          "description": "True for a known QA test account: its records are fixture data, not a real life.",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "handle",
+        "display_name",
+        "qa_fixture",
+        "note"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "channel": {
+      "description": "Always mcp_connector.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "connector": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "kind": {
+          "description": "oauth or api_key.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "description": "The connected app or API-key label shown to the account owner.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "kind",
+        "name"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "description": "chatgpt for ChatGPT OAuth writes; mcp for another OAuth app or API key.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "source",
+    "channel",
+    "connector",
+    "account"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). It discloses the 30-day retention guarantee, that archived rows are retained rather than purged, that intervening edits cause refusal, that repeat calls are idempotent no-ops, the $0 cost, and the API key requirement. That is rich operational context for a mutation.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, required inputs, retention window, conflict/idempotency behavior, cost/auth). Front-loaded with the action and free of padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers retention, idempotency, conflict handling, cost, and auth. The one gap is provenance of restore_id/request_id, which the agent must infer from a preceding cleanup/normalize call.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33% and the description merely restates that restore_id and request_id are required. It does not explain what a restore_id is, where the caller obtains it, or how idempotency_key relates (that alias is documented only in the schema). With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Restore an archive or normalization receipt.' This distinguishes it from entity-specific restores like restore_event or restore_trip, which recover deleted records rather than operation receipts. It is clear but doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The mention of 'receipt' implies this is used after a cleanup/normalization operation (cleanup_apply, normalize_people_apply), but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is stated. The 30-day window gives a useful temporal condition, yet the choice between this and restore_change/restore_event is left to inference.

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

All Dayze — Life Context tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.