LegendKeeper MCP

restore_resource

Idempotent

Restore a deleted resource from the trash when its parent is still active, recovering removed LegendKeeper wiki content.

Instructions

Restore a deleted resource from the trash (its parent must not be deleted).

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": {
      "resource_id": "<resource_id>"
    },
    "name": "restore_resource"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	No	Configured project (world) name. Omit to use the default project; see list_projects.
`resource_id`	Yes	Id of the deleted resource.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral precondition not present in structured data: the parent resource must not itself be deleted for the restore to be valid. It stops short of describing failure behavior or permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the precondition second. No filler, no redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the one non-obvious constraint. It lacks any mention of return values or how partial/precondition failure surfaces, but no output schema exists and nothing essential to invocation is missing.

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 parameters (project and resource_id) are already documented, including the "Omit to use the default project" guidance. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 precise verb and resource ("Restore a deleted resource from the trash") plus the scope constraint. No sibling offers restore semantics, so the operation is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like delete_resource or update_resource.

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?

Usage is implied by the word "restore" — it applies to previously deleted resources — and a precondition is given (parent must not be deleted). However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of what to do instead if the parent is deleted, and no reference to any alternative tool.

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