Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
arcane-mcp

arcane-mcp

by MikeCase
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

restore_volume_backup

Restore a Docker volume from a backup. Requires a confirmation token as this operation is destructive; specify volume name and backup ID.

Instructions

Restore a volume backup. Destructive; requires confirmation token.

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": {
      "volume_name": "<volume_name>",
      "backup_id": "<backup_id>"
    },
    "name": "restore_volume_backup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
env_idNo0
backup_idYes
agent_tokenNo
volume_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses destructive nature and need for confirmation token, but does not describe what happens if the token is missing or invalid, nor the tool's synchronous/asynchronous behavior. Annotations are absent, so description carries the burden but only partially covers behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence is concise but lacks structured details. While it is front-loaded, it omits necessary information like parameter mapping and success/failure outcomes.

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 destructive nature, four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the confirmation token mechanism, error handling, or the impact on the volume, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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 description mentions 'confirmation token' but does not specify which parameter maps to it (likely agent_token). With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify each parameter's role; it only hints at one of four parameters, leaving volume_name, env_id, and backup_id unexplained.

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?

Clearly states it restores a volume backup, distinguishing from sibling tools like create_volume_backup and delete_volume_backup. The destructive nature and confirmation token requirement are directly stated.

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?

Implies usage for restoring a backup with destructive consequences, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. The mention of a confirmation token suggests a safety check, but no exclusion criteria or prior steps are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools