HelpCenter.io

Restore Article Version

helpcenter_restore_article_version

DestructiveIdempotent

Roll a live article back to a previously published version.

Takes a version id from helpcenter_list_article_versions. The restore is itself archived, so it can be rolled forward again — this is reversible, but it DOES change what readers see immediately.

Args:

article_id (number, required).
version_id (number, required): from helpcenter_list_article_versions.

Returns: { status: "success", article: {...} } with the restored live article.

Errors: 403 if the key is read-scoped; 404 if the article or version is unknown or belongs to another help center.

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": {
      "article_id": "<article_id>",
      "version_id": "<version_id>"
    },
    "name": "helpcenter_restore_article_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site_id`	No	Which help center to act on: an id from helpcenter_list_sites. Needed when this connection reaches more than one help center; omit it when it reaches one. Applies to this call only — pass it on every call of a task, and ask the user which help center they mean if their request does not say.
`article_id`	Yes	Id of the article to roll back.
`version_id`	Yes	Id of the archived version to restore, from helpcenter_list_article_versions.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=true), the description discloses that the restore is itself archived and can be rolled forward again, that changes hit readers immediately, and it spells out 403 for read-scoped keys and 404 for unknown or cross-help-center versions. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent could not derive from structured fields alone.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the one-line purpose and warning, then Args, Returns, and Errors. The Args section largely duplicates the schema, but it is short and the rest of the structure is clean and easy to scan.

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, non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, error semantics, and reversibility. The only shortfall is that site_id, a relevant multi-help-center parameter, is never mentioned in the description.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The Args block restates article_id and version_id without adding meaning beyond the schema, and it entirely omits site_id, which the schema documents in detail — so no value is added here.

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?

The description opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Roll a live article back to a previously published version.' This clearly separates it from content-editing siblings such as helpcenter_update_article and from helpcenter_restore_template_version, which handles templates rather than articles.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent where version_id must come from (helpcenter_list_article_versions), which is the key dependency for calling the tool correctly. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the alternative of editing content via helpcenter_update_article, so a mild gap remains.

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

All HelpCenter.io 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?