unarchive_profileRestore an archived profile.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "unarchive_profile"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the description need not restate safety. But it adds nothing beyond that: no mention of idempotency (what happens if the profile is not archived), side effects such as resuming campaigns or sends, or error behavior for an invalid id.
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?
One short sentence with zero filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient rather than padded; the shortfall is missing content, not wordiness.
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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is minimally viable, but an agent still lacks the identifier semantics and the observable effect of unarchiving. A sentence on those would close the gap.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'id' is a bare integer with no description. The description does not say whether this is the profile id versus a user id, nor how to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
Specific verb ('Restore') plus resource ('archived profile') states exactly what the tool does, and it is implicitly the inverse of the sibling archive_profile. It stops short of saying what 'restore' produces or what state the profile returns to, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishing.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus archive_profile or create_profile, and no preconditions such as the profile needing to actually be archived, or required permissions. The agent must infer everything from the verb.
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.