unarchive_projectRestore an archived project and its client back to active status. Provide the archived project ID or "Client / Project" to bring it back.
Bring an archived project (and its client, if archived) back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Archived project id or "Client / Project" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| restored | Yes | "Client / Project" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing a side effect beyond the parameter: the associated client may also be unarchived, which the agent could not learn from the schema or annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the dual scope (project + client) is packed into the parenthetical rather than padded out.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 single simple parameter is fully documented. The main gap is the absence of any explicit rejection/failure behavior when the target is not archived, but overall it is complete for a simple restore operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage that already documents both the id and the 'Client / Project' format. The description adds no format or resolution detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('bring back' = restore) and resource (archived project), and the parenthetical scope clarifies that an archived client is also restored. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling archive_project but never names it, so the agent must infer the inverse relationship.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'archived project' implies the precondition that the project must currently be archived, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.