Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
esa MCP Server

esa MCP Server

Official
by esaio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Roll back a post to a previous revision

esa_rollback_post_revision
Destructive

Restore a post to a specified revision and save the restored content as a new revision, with an optional change message and WIP state.

Instructions

Rolls back a post to the specified revision, saving the restored content as a new revision.

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": {
      "postNumber": "<postNumber>",
      "revisionNumber": "<revisionNumber>"
    },
    "name": "esa_rollback_post_revision"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wipNoWIP state after rollback. Defaults to the target revision's WIP state
messageNoChange message for the rollback
teamNameNoTeam name (required). Use esa_get_teams first to see available teams.
postNumberYesThe post number to roll back
revisionNumberYesThe revision number to roll back to, e.g. the revision_number from esa_get_post before your edits

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.13.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the key added value is the clarification that the restored content is saved as a *new* revision rather than overwriting history — this materially softens how an agent should read the destructive flag. It still doesn't mention permission requirements, side effects on comments/backlinks, or that the target revision must still exist.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the non-obvious consequence ('saving the restored content as a new revision') attached immediately. Nothing extraneous, nothing buried.

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 five params, no output schema, and annotations that already signal the safety profile, the description covers the essential mechanics. It could do slightly more for a destructive mutation — e.g., whether the rollback is itself recoverable and what the response contains — but the schema carries the parameter burden well.

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% and every parameter carries a descriptive string, including the useful example for revisionNumber and the teamName lookup hint. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, 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?

States a specific verb (rolls back) and resource (a post) with the target qualifier (the specified revision), which is unmistakably distinct from esa_update_post or esa_append_post. It stops short of naming a sibling for disambiguation, but the operation is unambiguous on its own.

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?

The sentence describes what happens, not when to choose this over esa_update_post/esa_append_post; there is no guidance on prerequisites, on whether the post must be unlocked/editable, or when a rollback is inappropriate. The only routing hint in the whole definition ('use esa_get_teams first') lives in the schema, not the description.

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