Dayze — Life Context

restore expense

restore_expense

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: a 30-day retention window with archived rows retained rather than purged, refusal of intervening edits, idempotent repeats, $0 cost, and API-key auth. These behavioral constraints are not derivable from the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tight, front-loaded paragraph: the core action comes first, followed by prerequisites, then behavioral caveats and cost/auth in a parenthetical. Every clause carries information; only the redundant restatement of required parameters is arguably wasted.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with retention windows, idempotency semantics, and auth requirements, the description is nearly complete for a 3-parameter recovery tool; only the origin of restore_id is left unaddressed.

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 only 33% (only idempotency_key is documented). The description restates that restore_id and request_id are required, which the schema's required array already conveys, and adds no format, provenance, or relationship detail for those two ids. It does not compensate for the coverage gap, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (restore) and resource (archive or normalization receipt) so the agent knows this reverses prior archival/normalization work. It does not explicitly name the sibling recovery tools (restore_change, restore_cleanup, restore_event, restore_trip), but the expense-scoped name and the 'receipt' framing make the target unambiguous.

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?

Prerequisites are stated (restore_id and request_id required) and it clarifies that repeats are no-ops, which implies when re-issuing is safe. However, it never says when to choose this over restore_change/restore_cleanup or how an agent obtains the restore_id in the first place, leaving the routing 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.