R3

Make an older release live

r3_release_rollback

DestructiveIdempotent

Make an earlier release of a live R3 project the one its public URL shows again (rollback, or forward again). Only when the user asked for it. The project must be live; this never uses a plan slot. A release in the trash or one marked incomplete is refused. Nothing is deleted: the release that was live stays in the list. Take the number from r3_release_list. Needs the publish:live right.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	The project id (r3_project_list).
`releaseNumber`	Yes	The release to make live (r3_release_list).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`answer`	Yes	This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.
`changed`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes
`environment`	Yes
`releaseNumber`	Yes
`previousNumber`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / answer

Added value: +{
+  "description": "This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "projectId",
-  "releaseNumber",
-  "previousNumber",
-  "changed",
-  "environment"
-]New value: +[
+  "projectId",
+  "releaseNumber",
+  "previousNumber",
+  "changed",
+  "environment",
+  "answer"
+]

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past what the annotations declare. The annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true; the description adds an auth requirement ('publish:live right'), the no-plan-slot resource behavior, the refusal conditions, and the key clarification that no data is destroyed — the previously live release simply stays in the list. The 'nothing is deleted' note resolves the ambiguity the destructiveHint would otherwise leave an agent with, rather than contradicting it.

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?

Front-loads purpose first, then conditions, and every sentence carries load (gating, preconditions, refusals, side-effect model, parameter source, permission). It is slightly clipped into many short fragments, which reads more like a checklist than prose, but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter mutation tool with an output schema already present, the description covers everything the agent still needs: permission, live-project precondition, plan-slot behavior, refusal conditions, and the fact that the prior live release is retained. Return-shape detail is correctly omitted.

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% and both fields already point at the same source tools ('(r3_project_list)', '(r3_release_list)'). The description's 'Take the number from r3_release_list' merely restates the schema, adding no format or range detail. Baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: it re-points the public URL at an earlier release of a *live* project, and explicitly frames the two directions (rollback or forward again). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like r3_publish_live (push something new live), r3_release_list (enumerate) and r3_release_restore (trash recovery), all of which appear in the sibling list.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit gating condition ('Only when the user asked for it'), preconditions (project must be live; never consumes a plan slot), and refusal cases (release in trash, or marked incomplete). It also routes the agent to r3_release_list to obtain the release number, so there is no guesswork about where the input comes from.

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

All R3 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?