NomaCMS MCP Server

Official

by NomaCMS

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Revert Entry Version

revert_entry_version

Restore an entry to a prior version, replacing the current draft and publishing it as a new version.

Instructions

Restore the draft to a previous version's snapshot and publish it as a new version. The current unpublished draft is replaced. Returns the new version number.

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": {
      "collection_slug": "<collection_slug>",
      "uuid": "<uuid>",
      "version_number": "<version_number>"
    },
    "name": "revert_entry_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uuid`	Yes	The entry UUID
`version_number`	Yes	The version number to revert to (the snapshot to restore)
`collection_slug`	Yes	The collection slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: replaces current unpublished draft, publishes as new version, returns new version number. However, it omits side effects like overwriting drafts and does not mention permissions or error conditions.

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 the main action. No unnecessary words.

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?

Covers purpose, action, and return value. Lacks mention of error handling, prerequisites (e.g., existing unpublished draft), and potential side effects, but overall adequate for a revert operation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for uuid, version_number, and collection_slug. The tool description adds minimal extra context beyond 'previous version's snapshot'.

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 uses specific verb 'revert' and clearly states the action: restore draft to a previous version's snapshot and publish as new version. It distinguishes from siblings like get_entry_version (read-only) and publish_entry (publish current version).

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 implies usage for reverting to a previous version but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like get_entry_version or update_entry. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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