mcp-memory-graph

memory_version_restore

Destructive

Restore a memory to a previous version. The operation creates a new versioned edit without overwriting the current state.

Instructions

Roll a memory back to a prior version's content. The restore is itself a versioned, re-embedded edit (the pre-restore state is snapshotted, the vault file re-mirrored) — never a destructive overwrite. Returns the restored memory.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "memory_version_restore"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Memory ID
`version`	Yes	Version number to restore content from
`changed_by`	No	Who performed the restore

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.6.4Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=true by claiming 'never a destructive overwrite'. This is a serious inconsistency. Additionally, while the description adds context about versioned edits and snapshots, the contradiction undermines transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the key action and behavioral nuance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the restore action, versioned nature, and return value, but the contradiction with annotations reduces completeness. Without output schema, it does not explain what the restored memory object contains, and it lacks any mention of prerequisite or side effects beyond the annotation conflict.

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%, and the description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema. The parameters are well-documented in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'roll back' and resource 'memory to a prior version', explicitly distinguishing from destructive actions and noting the versioned nature. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'memory_restore' by focusing on version restoration and non-destructive behavior.

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 description implies usage for restoring a specific prior version, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memory_restore'. No direct exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server