RooQuiz

restore_form

Restore a deleted form from the trash in your current team. Recover forms removed by mistake, with access limited to the form owner or team owner.

Instructions

Restore a form from the trash in the current team (undo delete_form). Only the form owner / team owner can restore; errors if the form is not in the trash.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "formId": "<formId>"
    },
    "name": "restore_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`formId`	Yes	The form UUID to restore from trash

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`formId`	No	The form restored from trash
`message`	No	Human-readable result

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: permission requirements and an error condition when the form is not in the trash. It also makes the inverse relationship to delete_form explicit, which helps the agent predict side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and scope, then packs in the permission and error conditions without bloating the text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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 an output schema and annotations, this description is complete. It covers purpose, scope, preconditions, permissions, and a failure case, giving an agent enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single formId parameter, so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces the semantic link to the trash but does not add detail beyond the schema's 'form UUID' description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Restore a form from the trash') with the resource scope ('in the current team') and explicitly frames it as 'undo delete_form'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_form, update_form, and duplicate_form.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear conditions for use: the form must be in the trash, within the current team, and only the form owner or team owner can perform the restore. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives, but the 'undo delete_form' linkage gives enough context for an agent to decide when to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server