Restore an earlier script version for a session by version ID while saving the current text to history first.
Put an old version back (the current text is saved to history first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | Yes | Session as 'Project/folder', an absolute path, or its id (from get_session). An old path still works after a rename or move. | |
| version | Yes | Version id from the history list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the current text is snapshotted to history first, so the action is reversible. It does not cover failure modes (invalid/deleted version id) 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the parenthetical side-effect note. Nothing to trim or reorder.
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 two-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing piece (the auto-snapshot behavior). Only the prerequisite of sourcing the version id from script_history is left implicit.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'session' (path/id plus rename tolerance) and 'version' (history id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a concrete verb ('put back') and resource ('an old version'), making the revert operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g. restore_post_version or get_script_version), so it relies on the tool name for disambiguation.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. obtain the version id via script_history), and no routing to or away from siblings like get_script_version or restore_post_version. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.