Fix quarantined user accounts and restore their saved roles. This function allows you to lift the quarantine status within the AI Site Manager MCP environment.
Lift a quarantine and restore the account's saved roles. The password stays random and deleted application passwords are not restored. Requires users:write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| site | No | Configured site name from aism_sites. Omit for the default site. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context the annotations cannot carry by themselves: the password remains random after restore, deleted application passwords are not brought back, and users:write is required. This scope disclosure is genuinely useful for a tool flagged destructiveHint=true, though it does not say whether the restore is itself reversible or what state the account lands in.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (action, restoration limits, permission), with the primary action front-loaded. No filler.
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 tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the side-effect limits, and the auth requirement. Only the meaning of the id parameter and the resulting account state are 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 only 50%, and the tool's sole required parameter (id) has no schema description at all. The description mentions no parameters and does not clarify whether id is the user ID or something else, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource (lift a quarantine, restore the account's saved roles) that an agent can immediately distinguish from the sibling aism_user_quarantine, which performs the opposite action. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 strongly implied (this is the inverse of quarantine), and the permission requirement is stated, but the description never explicitly names aism_user_quarantine as the counterpart or states preconditions such as the account currently being quarantined. No when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.