restore_pageRestore a trashed page to its original location using its page ID. Recover deleted Docmost pages from the trash for continued access and editing.
Restores a page that is in the trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_id | Yes | UUID or slugId of the page. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action (restore) and the target state (in the trash), but does not disclose side effects, such as whether restoring restores child pages, whether permissions are required, or whether the page ID must be a specific type. The description is accurate but minimal.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
The tool has a simple input schema (one required parameter) and an output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no annotations and no mention of edge cases (e.g., restoring a page that is not in the trash, or restoring a page with children), the description leaves some behavioral gaps. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (page_id) as a UUID or slugId. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but with full coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('restores') and resource ('a page that is in the trash'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_page or move_page. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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 description implies the tool is for restoring trashed pages, which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as using get_page to verify trash status or move_page for non-trash pages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.