elementor-mcp-agent

restore_from_file

Destructive

Restore a WordPress page from a JSON backup file. Requires the file path returned by a prior backup operation and a two-step confirmation to prevent accidental overwrites.

Instructions

Restore a page from a JSON backup file (created by ANY earlier op with backup_to_file=true or by direct fullBackup with to_file). Requires the file_path returned by that backup. Two-call confirmation.

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": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "restore_from_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_id`	No
`page_id`	Yes
`file_path`	Yes
`confirmation`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`page_id`	Yes
`file_path`	Yes
`method`	No
`pre_restore_backup_meta_key`	No
`css_flush`	No
`confirmation_token`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true; description adds that restoration requires a JSON backup file and involves a two-call confirmation. Beyond annotations, it clarifies the backup source and process but does not fully detail destructive scope.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous content. Efficiently communicates core action and constraints.

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 4 parameters with zero schema descriptions and a destructive action, description lacks detail on optional parameters and the two-call confirmation mechanism. Insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without further guesswork.

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?

Schema has 0% parameter descriptions; description only clarifies file_path's purpose and hints at confirmation. It fails to explain site_id or the confirmation parameter's role, leaving significant ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states the tool restores a page from a JSON backup file, specifying the backup source (earlier op with backup_to_file=true or fullBackup with to_file). This distinguishes it from siblings like restore_elementor_backup.

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?

Description notes the file_path requirement and mentions two-call confirmation, but does not explain when to avoid or what alternatives exist. It provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on when-not-to-use.

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