restore_logbook_entryBring an entry back to the logbook, with the annotation it placed on the curves. Call get_logbook with deleted set to "only" to find the entries to bring back. Restoring an entry already in the logbook answers the same.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes | The UUID of the logbook entry: call get_logbook to find it (only manual entries carry an id). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the idempotentHint and non-destructive annotations, the description adds that the entry is restored with its annotation on curves. This supplements the structured data with meaningful behavioral context.
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, no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second provides usage guidance and explains idempotency. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does, how to find the input, and what happens when the entry is already restored.
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 single parameter entry_id is fully described in the input schema with a usage hint. The tool description does not add new information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('bring back'), the resource ('logbook entry'), and the key behavioral aspect ('with the annotation it placed on the curves'). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like delete_logbook_entry and create_logbook_entry.
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?
Explicitly instructs the user to call get_logbook with deleted='only' to find entries to restore, and notes that restoring an already-present entry is idempotent. Provides clear context for appropriate use, though does not explicitly state when not to use it.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions go out of their way to separate near-neighbor concepts like surfaces vs corroborations and score series vs raw responses. A few related pairs (get_results/get_responses, get_credits/get_usage, create_surface/create_corroboration) could still be confused at a glance, so it is not a perfect 5.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern across all 67 tools, with clear families like create_, update_, get_, list_, archive_, restore_, and delete_. Minor quirks such as topup_credits as one word do not break the overall uniformity.
67 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, even for a broad brand-monitoring domain. The surface is bloated with lifecycle variants per entity, and the sheer number makes the server hard to navigate and prompt against.
The server covers full lifecycles for projects, trackers, surfaces, corroborations, quests, logbook entries, keyword discoveries, competitor scans, link targets, sources, support, and billing. Archive/restore and soft-delete paths prevent dead ends, and nearly every obvious workflow has a corresponding tool.