lnkdrp_restore_campaignSame as lnkdrp_restore_drop, under its earlier name: the same arguments and the same answers. A drop is one email template sent from the member's own Gmail to people picked for it and the people on its contact lists, each person with their own tracked link to each of the template's documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaignId | Yes | The drop's id (campaignId, 24 hex chars), from lnkdrp_list_drops. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond them — no permission requirements, no statement of what state the drop returns to, no note on whether an already-restored or purged drop errors. The 'drop' definition sentence is domain background, not behavior of the restore operation.
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 alias statement is front-loaded and useful, but the second sentence is a long generic gloss on Gmail sending and tracked links that has nothing to do with restoring a deleted drop, so roughly half the text does not earn its place for an invocation decision.
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?
For a one-parameter, idempotent mutation the description should say the precondition for restoring (drop must be deleted) and what changes on success; it says neither, and there is no output schema to fall back on. The aliasing note is the only real completeness gain.
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% and the single campaignId parameter already documents the 24-hex format and that ids come from lnkdrp_list_drops. The description's only contribution is 'the same arguments', which adds no meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 first sentence identifies the tool only by reference: 'Same as lnkdrp_restore_drop, under its earlier name.' That tells an agent this is a deprecated alias, useful for distinguishing it from the canonical sibling, but the description never itself states the verb+resource (restore a deleted drop) — it borrows the definition. The second sentence defines what a drop is, not what restoring one does.
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?
It establishes equivalence with lnkdrp_restore_drop (same arguments, same answers) which implies 'either works', but it never says when an agent should prefer this alias over lnkdrp_restore_drop, nor the precondition that the drop must currently be in the deleted set (from lnkdrp_list_deleted). No exclusions or failure conditions are given.
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.