Restore an archived Kaiten card to its live state using its card ID so it becomes active and editable again.
Restore an archived card to its live condition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / properties / card_id / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991Output schema / properties / item / properties / childrenAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "archived": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "board_id": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "column_id": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "condition": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "due_date": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "lane_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "owner_id": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "state": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "updated": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "title",
+ "board_id",
+ "column_id"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / item / properties / external_linksAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "card_id": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "created": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "external_link_id": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "updated": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / item / properties / parentsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "archived": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "board_id": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "column_id": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "condition": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "due_date": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "lane_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "owner_id": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "state": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "updated": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "title",
+ "board_id",
+ "column_id"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the state transition (archived -> live); it says nothing about required permissions, what happens when restoring an already-live card, or where the card reappears on its board.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a state-changing operation.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool has only one parameter, keeping the required scope small. Still, for a non-idempotent, destructive-flagged mutation the description omits error conditions (non-archived card, missing card) and any side-effect notes, leaving clear gaps.
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?
There is one parameter, card_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — not even that it identifies the archived card. The schema's name and integer/exclusiveMinimum constraints carry all the meaning, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('an archived card') and names the resulting state ('live condition'), which lets an agent distinguish it from kaiten_archive_card and kaiten_delete_card in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as inverses/alternatives.
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 precondition (the card must already be archived) is implied by 'an archived card', so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of what to do if the card is already live, and no reference to sibling tools such as archive_card or delete_card.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.