Revert a remote file to its saved .matlock.bak snapshot, undoing modifications via SFTP over SSH.
Instantly rollback a modified remote file to its previous .matlock.bak snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | Optional SSH connection target. If omitted, uses default profile (homelab). | |
| filePath | Yes | Absolute remote file path to restore. | |
| backupPath | No | Specific backup file path (if omitted, uses .matlock.bak.latest). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Instantly rollback' implies a mutating, destructive overwrite, but the description never states that the current file contents are replaced (data loss), what happens if no .matlock.bak exists, whether permissions are required, or what the result is. Only the snapshot source is disclosed.
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 zero filler, correctly leading with the action and the target mechanism. It is arguably too terse for a destructive operation, but as a structure/conciseness matter it is efficient and well-ordered.
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 destructive rollback tool with a nested SSH target object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It omits overwrite/data-loss semantics, failure behavior when no backup exists, and any relation to the sibling write tool, leaving an agent unequipped to call it safely.
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 the schema already documents filePath, backupPath, and the nested SSH target fields; the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the '.matlock.bak snapshot' loosely maps to backupPath but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 specific verb (rollback) and resource (modified remote file) and names the exact snapshot mechanism (.matlock.bak). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like sftp_write_safe or sftp_read_file, but the operation is clear enough for an agent to select it.
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 gives no explicit when/when-not guidance. It does not say this is meant to undo a prior sftp_write_safe, that a valid snapshot must already exist, or how it relates to the alternative of re-writing the file. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.