restore_versionMake a presentation you may edit look exactly as it did in a version (slides, blocks, order, title). The restore is a new version itself, so it can be undone the same way.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The presentation's slug (its address: /movie/<slug>/). | |
| number | Yes | The version number. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | ||
| restored | Yes | The version that was brought back. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "restored": {
+ "description": "The version that was brought back.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "properties": {
+ "agent": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "author": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "changes": {
+ "description": "What changed in this version.",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "created_at": {
+ "description": "ISO 8601 date and time.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "number": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "updated_at": {
+ "description": "ISO 8601 date and time.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "number"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "restored"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations do not carry: the restore itself becomes a new version, making it undoable the same way as any other version. That non-obvious reversibility detail is the kind of disclosure this dimension rewards.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The scope of the restore is front-loaded and the reversibility note follows as supporting context.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the operation's effect and reversibility. The only gap is explicit routing guidance versus get_version/list_history, which is minor for a two-parameter tool.
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% – slug and number are fully documented in the schema, including the /movie/<slug>/ address form. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('make a presentation ... look exactly as it did in a version') and enumerates what is restored (slides, blocks, order, title), which sets it apart from read-oriented siblings like get_version and list_history. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'a version' and by the restore semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or ordering guidance relative to get_version/list_history. An agent must infer the workflow (find version, then restore it).
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.