Scholar Library

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

restore_library

Restore a literature library from a trusted backup archive into a new directory, verify hashes and database integrity, avoid overwriting existing libraries, disable cloud and full-text output access.

Instructions

从用户指定可信备份恢复至全新目录，校验哈希和数据库；不覆盖现有库，恢复后云服务和正文输出权限全部关闭。

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": {
      "archive_path": "<archive_path>",
      "new_directory": "<new_directory>"
    },
    "name": "restore_library"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`archive_path`	Yes
`new_directory`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description corroborates with '不覆盖现有库'. Beyond that it adds real behavioral value: hash/database verification during restore and the notable side effect that cloud services and full-text output permissions are disabled post-restore.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action front-loaded and clauses separated by semicolons. Efficient with no filler, though the permission caveat and non-overwrite guarantee are packed in without further structure.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the essential what, the non-destructive guarantee, verification steps, and the permission side effect. Return value details are the only notable omission.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It conceptually maps the two params (archive_path = trusted backup source, new_directory = the fresh target directory), but adds no format, path, or validation detail for either.

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?

States a specific verb (恢复/restore) plus resource (library) and scope (from a user-specified trusted backup into a brand-new directory). This clearly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling backup_library and from preview_deletion/delete_work.

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 the scenario (recovering from a trusted backup) and notes it will not overwrite the existing library, which is useful context. But it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance relative to backup_library or the deletion tools.

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