Turbo Quant Memory MCP Server

by Lexus2016

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

restore_file

Restore a specific file version into the working tree while preserving the overwritten content as a new version, so the restore can be undone.

Instructions

Write a journaled version of one file back into the working tree.

version: a version id from file_history, or "HEAD" for the committed content. The content being overwritten is kept as a new version, so the restore can be undone.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "restore_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`version`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.36.1Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important behavioral trait: the overwritten content is retained as a new version, so the restore is undoable. That is exactly the kind of safety context annotations would otherwise provide. It stops short of covering failure modes or permission requirements.

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 operation is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact definition of the version argument and the reversibility guarantee. No sentence is wasted, though the opening line leans on unexplained terms like 'journaled' and 'working tree'.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Both required parameters are addressed, an output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the mutation's reversibility is stated. Remaining gaps are edge conditions (nonexistent path, conflicts, permissions), which are secondary for a two-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: 'version' is defined as a version id from file_history or the literal "HEAD" for committed content, which the bare schema does not convey. 'path' is only implied by 'one file' and its format/root semantics are never stated.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: writing a journaled version of one file back into the working tree, i.e. restoring a file to a prior state. It also anchors the 'version' input to file_history, which implicitly separates it from that sibling. The term 'journaled' is unexplained jargon, but the overall operation is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

By saying the version comes 'from file_history, or HEAD', it implies the workflow of calling file_history first, which is useful routing. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus inspecting history, no preconditions (clean working tree, existing path), and no exclusions.

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