GravityPort

asset_restore

Idempotent

Restore a deleted asset from Trash to the active library by providing its asset ID.

Instructions

Restore an asset from Trash back to the active library.

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": {
      "assetId": "<assetId>"
    },
    "name": "asset_restore"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`assetId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.11Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds the meaningful state transition (Trash → active library). It stays silent on side effects an agent would want, such as whether prior collections/stack membership or metadata are restored when a trashed asset is revived.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the source/target state, with no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. It misses error semantics for assets not in Trash and does not say what an agent should expect back, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. Saying 'an asset' makes clear that assetId identifies the item to revive, but it does not specify the identifier format (ID vs name/slug) or behavior for an unknown ID.

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?

The description names a specific verb (restore) and resource (asset) plus the exact state transition: from Trash to the active library. That makes it clearly distinct from the inverse operation asset_trash, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this undoes a trash operation, but the description never states prerequisites (the asset must currently be in Trash) or what to do for a non-trashed asset. No alternative or exclusion is named.

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