restore_projectRestore an archived project to return it to the project list and resume scheduled checks for its active tracked queries.
Bring an archived project back: it reappears in the project list and its active tracked queries are checked again on their schedule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | ||
| organizationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the project reappears in the list and its active tracked queries resume running on their schedule, which is a real side effect not captured in annotations. It omits permission requirements, but that is a modest gap.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the observable effect. No filler text.
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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, behavioral completeness is good. The only shortfall is the undocumented parameters, but the required inputs are obvious and no output schema exists to explain.
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 0% and neither organizationId nor projectId is explained in the description. The parameter names are largely self-evident, but the description does nothing to compensate for the total absence of schema-level documentation.
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 states a specific verb ('bring an archived project back') and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools archive_project and restore_organization by naming the project scope. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and the inverse relationship to archive_project, but the description never states when to use this versus alternatives or any precondition (e.g., the project must currently be archived). No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.