Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ThreadPage

by page.thread
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Restore a note version

restore_note_version
DestructiveIdempotent

Make an earlier version the Note's current content, as a new revision: the history in between is kept. First get_note, then pass its content_revision as expected_revision and its context_receipt; preview_changed means the Note changed since — read it again. Can edit and organize restores any Note's version; Can add notes only those of Notes it added. Answers a receipt with restored_version_id, content_revision and url; the same operation_id answers it again instead of restoring twice.

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": {
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>",
      "note_id": "<note_id>",
      "version_id": "<version_id>",
      "expected_revision": "<expected_revision>",
      "context_receipt": "<context_receipt>"
    },
    "name": "restore_note_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
note_idYesA Note's id, from get_thread, search or get_note.
version_idYesA version's id, from get_note_history.
operation_idYesA new UUID for each write. After a lost answer, send the identical call with the same one, or check get_operation before writing again.
context_receiptYesThe context_receipt get_note answered.
expected_revisionYesThe content_revision get_note answered.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive/idempotent, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: history is preserved rather than truncated, the operation is idempotent per operation_id ('the same operation_id answers it again instead of restoring twice'), and permission scopes differ by role. That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before a destructive write.

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 the purpose in the first sentence and then layers preconditions, permissions, and return shape. A few clauses are compressed to the point of near-ungrammaticality ('the history in between is kept', 'Can edit and organize restores any Note's version'), which costs a bit of readability but no wasted content.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the receipt fields (restored_version_id, content_revision, url). Combined with preconditions, permission scope, and idempotency behavior, nothing critical is missing for a 5-parameter destructive mutation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining the relationship between parameters — expected_revision and context_receipt both come from a prior get_note call, and operation_id is the idempotency key. It adds workflow meaning beyond the field-level text.

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 a precise semantic twist: 'Make an earlier version the Note's current content, as a new revision: the history in between is kept.' This clearly distinguishes it from get_note_version (read) and restore_note (whole-note restore).

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite sequence ('First get_note, then pass its content_revision...') and a recovery rule for stale state ('preview_changed means the Note changed since — read it again'), plus per-role usage limits. It does not name a sibling alternative for the non-version restore case, but the guidance in itself is clear.

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

All ThreadPage toolsInspect
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