restore_trash_entryRestore an exact NotePom trash entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trashEntryId | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| restored | Yes | ||
| trashEntryId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only behavior, so the description adds the semantic context that this is a targeted restore operation. It does not disclose edge-case behavior such as conflicts with the restored location, but that is beyond the annotation baseline.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it names the action and the target without wasted words.
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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, this is minimally sufficient. However, it omits what restore entails (original location, conflict behavior) and any prerequisites, so it is not fully complete.
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 0% and the description does not explain trashEntryId or idempotencyKey. 'Exact' weakly maps to trashEntryId, but the purpose of idempotencyKey is left entirely to the schema name and idempotentHint annotation, so the description fails to compensate for the low 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 uses a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('NotePom trash entry'), and 'exact' conveys a targeted operation. This clearly distinguishes it from purge_trash_entry and the trash_* siblings.
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?
The intended use is implied by the name and verb: call this when a specific trash entry should be brought back. It does not explicitly contrast with purge_trash_entry for permanent deletion or state prerequisites like the entry still being in trash.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and lifecycle pairs like publish_note_listing vs publish_media_listing or get_note vs get_collaboration_note are separated by clear wording. A few near-pairs such as move_file vs move_workspace_item and trash_file vs trash_workspace_item could still cause an agent to pick the wrong tool without careful reading.
All 38 tools follow one consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even less common verbs like upsert, trash, purge, and validate are applied uniformly, making the tool set predictable.
38 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and makes the overall surface feel heavy for tool selection. The number is defensible given the broad workspace, collaboration, and marketplace scope, but as a single MCP server it is not especially well-scoped.
The tool set covers workspace content lifecycle, collaboration, public pages, marketplace listings, Stripe seller flow, and agent registration without major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no permanent delete outside of the trash flow and no direct collaboration-note deletion, but core workflows are supported.