restore_from_archiveRestore archived items of one type back to active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | IDs to restore (from list_archive) | |
| type | Yes | Which entity kind these ids are |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Confirmation that the named items are active again. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Confirmation that the named items are active again."
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the state transition to 'active' but does not disclose edge cases such as behavior when restoring already-active IDs, permission requirements, or atomicity across multiple IDs.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('of one type,' 'back to active') contributes meaning and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 only two required parameters, an enum, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could have mentioned constraints such as rejecting mixed types or already-active IDs, but the schema and annotations cover the main inputs and safety profile.
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%, with both ids and type already documented in the schema. The description adds no substantive parameter meaning beyond echoing the idea of 'one type,' so the schema carries the burden and the baseline of 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 description uses the specific verb 'restore' with 'archived items' as the resource and clarifies the outcome: returning them 'back to active.' It is immediately distinguishable from the many archive_* sibling tools, which perform the opposite operation.
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: restore items that were previously archived. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or how it relates to archive_* or list_archive.
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.