Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Casefile

Casefile

by azimov777
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Restore project

restore_project

Reopen an archived project by giving its key and a reason: files a restored case entry and resumes tasks where the archive left them. Refuses projects that were never archived.

Instructions

Brings an archived project back: files a restored entry carrying the reason in its case, and its tasks resume where the archive left them.

A project that is not archived is refused with project_not_archived.

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": {
      "key": "<key>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "restore_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesProject key, case-insensitive. An unknown key is refused with `project_not_found`
reasonYesWhy the project is archived or restored; a blank one is refused with `project_reason_required`. Filed in the `archived` or `restored` entry of the project's case

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noYesNumber of the `archived` or `restored` entry in the project's case
keyYes
archived_atYesWhen the project was archived; `null` once it is restored

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that — it writes a `restored` journal entry carrying the reason and resumes task state where archiving left off, plus the refusal code for non-archived projects. It does not discuss idempotency or permissions, but the state-transition detail is well above the annotation baseline.

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 core action and followed by the effect and the refusal condition. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the state transition and the error case. Only minor gaps remain — no explicit mention of the `archive_project` alternative or permission requirements.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `key` and `reason` are fully documented in the schema itself, including the refusal codes. The description's mention of the reason being 'carried in its case' duplicates the schema's statement that it is filed in the `restored` entry, adding little beyond it. 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 and resource ('Brings an archived project back') and describes the concrete effects: filing a `restored` entry and resuming tasks. It doesn't explicitly name `archive_project` as the counterpart, but the archived-project framing makes the inverse relationship inferable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear precondition and the failure mode for violating it ('A project that is not archived is refused with `project_not_archived`'), which effectively tells the agent when not to call it. It stops short of explicitly routing to the sibling `archive_project` for the opposite operation.

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