Restore an archived project you own to the data plane. Restoring consumes one of your plan's active-project slots, so at the limit this returns an error telling you to archive another project or upgrade. Idempotent for an already-active project. Requires an ACCOUNT-scoped token and the config scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The slug of a project you own. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing quota consumption, the error-at-limit behavior, idempotency for active projects, and required credentials/scope. These are important side effects and preconditions not visible in the schema or annotations.
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?
Three tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: main action, quota side effect/error case, and auth/idempotency. No repetition or filler.
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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, error behavior, and invocation requirements. Nothing critical is missing for a well-informed agent.
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 covers 100% of the single slug parameter with its own description 'The slug of a project you own.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra value here.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Restore an archived project you own to the data plane.' This unambiguously identifies the action and object, and contrasts well with the sibling archive_project tool.
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 provides practical usage context: the operation consumes an active-project slot, errors at the plan limit with remediation options, and is idempotent for already-active projects. It also states required token type and scope. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools for when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.
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 distinct resources and the descriptions are unusually explicit, but the billing cluster (change_plan/cancel_subscription and the many add-on actions) plus the preview/diff tools overlap and could cause mis-selection. config_diff, dry_run_endpoint, and preview_line_draft all read as 'preview what will change' at first glance despite different scopes.
The overwhelming majority follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, delete_*. It is only held back by a few naming outliers such as config_diff and default_endpoint_template, which break the verb-first convention.
78 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface, even accounting for the broad management/relay domain. Such a large surface will overwhelm model context and make tool selection materially harder; this would be better split into focused servers for configuration, data-plane operations, and billing.
The tool surface is very thorough: projects, lines, endpoints, credentials, keys, configs/drafts, DLQ, requests, metrics, audit, team, and billing are all represented. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-line get/update and the intentional inability to widen the outbound allowlist or lift archive protection via API.
