Skip to main content
Glama

checkpoint_restore

Restore a virtual filesystem workspace to a saved checkpoint for data recovery or state rollback.

Instructions

Restore workspace to a checkpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYes

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler method in CheckpointTools class that restores the workspace from a given checkpoint_id by delegating to CheckpointManager.
    async def checkpoint_restore(
        self, request: CheckpointRestoreRequest
    ) -> CheckpointRestoreResponse:
        """
        Restore workspace to a checkpoint.
    
        Args:
            request: CheckpointRestoreRequest with checkpoint_id
    
        Returns:
            CheckpointRestoreResponse with success status
        """
        await self.checkpoint_manager.restore_checkpoint(request.checkpoint_id)
    
        return CheckpointRestoreResponse(
            success=True,
            checkpoint_id=request.checkpoint_id,
            restored_at=datetime.now(UTC),
        )
  • MCP tool registration using @server.tool decorator, which delegates to the CheckpointTools instance.
    @server.tool
    async def checkpoint_restore(request: CheckpointRestoreRequest):
        """Restore workspace to a checkpoint."""
        return await checkpoint_tools_instance.checkpoint_restore(request)
  • Pydantic model defining the input schema for the checkpoint_restore tool.
    class CheckpointRestoreRequest(BaseModel):
        """Request to restore checkpoint"""
    
        checkpoint_id: str
  • Pydantic model defining the output schema for the checkpoint_restore tool.
    class CheckpointRestoreResponse(BaseModel):
        """Response from checkpoint restore"""
    
        success: bool
        checkpoint_id: str
        restored_at: datetime
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Restore' suggests a mutation that may overwrite current workspace state, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., data loss), or rate limits. It lacks details on what 'restore' entails beyond the basic action.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic action, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's potential complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool likely involves workspace restoration (a mutation with potential data implications), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like what happens during restore, error conditions, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what the 'request' parameter represents (e.g., checkpoint ID, name, or configuration), its format, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Restore workspace to a checkpoint' clearly states the action (restore) and target (workspace to checkpoint), but it's somewhat vague about what 'restore' entails operationally. It distinguishes from siblings like checkpoint_create or checkpoint_delete by focusing on restoration, but lacks specificity on scope or effects compared to workspace_* tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing checkpoint), exclusions, or relationships with siblings like checkpoint_list (to find checkpoints) or workspace_switch (for workspace changes). The description implies usage but offers no explicit context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/IBM/chuk-mcp-vfs'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server