Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-bridge

agent-bridge

by avas-app
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

scenario.restore

scenario_restore

Undo active scenarios newest first, reverting changes made to a running React Native or Expo dev build. Use it to reset app state after agent-driven tests.

Instructions

Undo every active scenario, newest first. bridge.restore runs this after every other restorer.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "scenario_restore"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsNoThe tool's arguments, in order (each any JSON value). Leave out for none.
fullNoReturn a result over 32 KB whole instead of a summary of its size and shape.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key behavioral trait that this affects ALL active scenarios (bulk, not one) and processes them newest first. It says nothing about irreversibility, partial-failure behavior, permissions, or what happens to a scenario whose undo fails, which matters for a bulk undo operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the orchestration note placed second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 low-complexity tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it does, ordering, and the calling context well enough to invoke correctly. The remaining gap is failure/irreversibility semantics for a bulk undo.

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%, so both parameters (args, full) are already documented in the schema, including the 32 KB threshold on full. The description adds no meaning 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ("Undo") against a specific resource ("every active scenario") and adds a meaningful detail (newest first), making it separable from sibling scenario_apply. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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 second sentence implies this is normally driven by bridge.restore rather than called directly, which is real context for invocation. However, it never states when an agent should invoke it manually versus via bridge_restore, nor any preconditions or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools