rollback_siteRe-point a site to any finalized version (rollback or roll-forward). Get version ids from get_site. Serving updates immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | site slug to re-point | |
| versionId | Yes | finalized version id from get_site |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that updates are immediate and that the tool can roll forward, beyond the idempotentHint annotation. It does not contradict 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?
Two concise sentences with the main action upfront. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
The description is complete for this tool given the existing schema, output schema, and annotations. It covers input, source of version IDs, and effect.
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 100%, and the description adds meaningful context for versionId by specifying it comes from get_site. The slug parameter's description in schema is adequate.
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 clearly states the tool 'Re-point a site to any finalized version (rollback or roll-forward)', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like promote_site or feature_site.
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?
The description advises to 'Get version ids from get_site', guiding the user on prerequisite actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.