restore_flagRestore an archived feature flag in a project so it can be used again for targeting and rollouts.
Restore a previously archived flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flag | Yes | Flag key or id | |
| project | Yes | Project key |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flag | Yes | ||
| archived | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / properties / flag / descriptionAdded value: +"Flag key or id"Input schema / properties / project / descriptionAdded value: +"Project key"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "archived": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "flag": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "flag",
+ "archived"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It does not say whether targeting/config is preserved on restore, whether the call is idempotent, what error occurs if the flag is not archived, or what permissions are required.
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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient but nearly identical to the title, so brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than through tight editing of rich content.
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 not be described, but for a state-mutating tool with only a destructiveHint annotation the description omits the effects of restoration, error conditions, and prerequisites. That leaves the agent under-informed about calling it correctly.
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% (flag: 'Flag key or id'; project: 'Project key'), so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which puts it at the baseline 3.
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 (restore) and resource (a previously archived flag), making the inverse relation to archive_flag inferable. However it adds nothing beyond the title and does not explicitly name the sibling it complements or the state transition it performs.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus archive_flag, delete_flag, or get_flag, nor any stated prerequisite such as the flag actually being archived. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.