Scribase

Restore a branch to a time

branches.restore

Destructive

Rewind a branch in place to a point in time; the URL and keys stay and the state before is kept. Destructive: needs confirm: true and the destructive scope; production additionally needs production:destructive. Scope: branches:write.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "branch": "<branch>",
      "at": "<at>"
    },
    "name": "branches.restore"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`at`	Yes	RFC 3339 time inside the history window, e.g. 2026-09-28T10:15:00Z
`branch`	Yes	The branch to restore
`confirm`	No	Must be true to run a destructive operation, after the user approved it
`project_id`	No	Project id. Optional: defaults to the project created or used last in this session, or the only one.
`wait_seconds`	No	Seconds to wait until it is live (default 60, 0 returns immediately)
`organization_id`	No	Organization id. Optional: defaults to the token's organization, or the only one you belong to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: the explicit confirm gate, the required scopes, the production-specific escalation, and the reversibility cue that prior state is retained. It stops short of covering async/settling behavior or what happens to in-flight traffic during the rewind.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core effect and followed by the risk and authorization requirements. Nothing is padded and no clause is redundant.

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?

For a destructive six-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers effect, reversal, and authorization adequately. The remaining gap is operational: no guidance on the wait_seconds settling window (blocking vs. returning a pending state) or the bounds of the history window for 'at'.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the RFC 3339 format for 'at' and the confirm rationale. The description's mention of confirm and scopes restates rather than extends the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rewind a branch in place to a point in time') plus the distinguishing scope semantics: the URL and keys stay and prior state is kept. That is enough to separate it from an outright reset or a merge without opening the schema.

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?

The description gives hard prerequisites (confirm: true, destructive scope, production:destructive) but never states when to choose this over the adjacent branches.reset, branches.merge, or backup.restore. Required permissions are covered; selection between alternatives is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Scribase 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.

Resources

Need Help?