Preview or restore files from an export manifest while preventing overwrite of later edits.
Preview or restore files from an export manifest without overwriting later edits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | ||
| module | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| rollback_id | Yes | ||
| expected_preview | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully states that later edits are not overwritten, but it does not explain permissions, what confirm changes, whether restore is irreversible, or how expected_preview affects behavior.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to missing workflow detail rather than being a structural flaw by itself.
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 helps with return values, but this is a five-parameter mutation-capable tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations. The description gives only the high-level purpose and safety condition, leaving required workflow and parameter context incomplete.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. Critical fields such as confirm and expected_preview are left especially opaque for a preview/restore workflow.
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 and resource: preview or restore files from an export manifest. It clearly distinguishes preview from restore, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from nearby export/customization siblings.
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 preview/restore framing implies when the tool is useful and the safety clause hints at using preview before restore. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.