restore_fileRestore a previous version of a file in your Fulcra account by specifying its version ID, reverting unwanted changes or recovering earlier content.
Restore a previous version of a file in the user's Fulcra account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version_id | Yes | The UUID of the file version to restore. Found via list_files with include_versions=true. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.7Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates the account but is framed as non-destructive. The description adds the versioning semantics ('a previous version'), implying version history is preserved, but says nothing about whether current file content is overwritten, whether the old head remains recoverable, or whether new versions are created.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource arrive immediately. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, so the efficiency is real but leaves value on the table.
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?
For a one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the core action and annotations cover the safety profile. It stops short of explaining the effect on the current file head or what the caller gets back, which an agent invoking a restore operation would reasonably want.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the UUID format and how to obtain it via list_files. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema fully documents the parameter.
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 gives a specific verb (restore) and resource (a previous version of a file) scoped to the user's Fulcra account, so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling restore_data_type, though the file-vs-data-type noun difference makes the split reasonably inferable.
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?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The useful routing hint ('version_id found via list_files with include_versions=true') lives only in the schema, not in the description text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.