Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ent1-mcp

ent1-mcp

by edouard-claude
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Hybrid

messagerie_restaurer

Idempotent

Restore deleted messages from the trash in an ENT ONE/Edifice mailbox using message IDs.

Instructions

Restaure des messages depuis la corbeille.

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "messagerie_restaurer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that restoration is from the trash (implying state dependency) but says nothing about permissions, failures, or effects on message folders.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is arguably over-terse for a mutation tool with an undocumented required parameter — conciseness here borders on under-specification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a state-changing, non-readonly tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description omits preconditions (message must be in trash), identifier format, and return/error behavior. The trivial operation keeps this from being a total gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage on the top-level 'ids' property and the required array is the only signal. The description never mentions that one or more message identifiers must be supplied or what their format is, so it adds no meaning over the schema.

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 ('Restaure des messages') plus the source state ('depuis la corbeille'), which cleanly separates it from messagerie_supprimer and messagerie_lire. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says the message must currently be in the trash, nor whether messagerie_supprimer is the inverse operation. The agent must infer usage from the single sentence and sibling names.

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