Skip to main content
Glama
backrest-mcp

backrest-mcp

by TadMSTR

find_plan_for_path

Determine which backup plans cover a given absolute path and whether an exclude rule drops it.

Instructions

Find which backup plans cover an absolute path, and whether an exclude drops it.

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>"
    },
    "name": "find_plan_for_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAn absolute path on the backed-up host, e.g. "/home/ted/Documents/x.txt". Pure string matching: the path does not have to exist and the filesystem is never read.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Find' implies a read-only lookup, and the description avoids any wrong claims, but it says nothing about behavior when no plan matches, whether results are ordered, or cost. The key behavioral caveat (pure string matching, filesystem never read) lives only in the schema, not the description.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the primary outcome (which plans cover the path) and appends the secondary check. No filler, nothing to remove.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the lone parameter is fully documented. The definition is nearly complete; it could note what an empty result means, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including the absolute-path format and the string-matching semantics. The description reinforces 'absolute path' but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Find') and a specific resource ('which backup plans cover an absolute path'), plus a second facet (whether an exclude drops it). This clearly separates it from list_plans, which enumerates plans rather than resolving a path. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly.

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?

The scenario is implied by the phrasing — you call it when you have a path and want to know which plan owns it — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative. An agent must infer that list_plans is the choice for 'show me all plans'.

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