restore_requestRestore a deleted request from the trash in ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus by providing its request ID, returning it to active service desk management.
Restore a request from trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits whether the request returns to its prior state, what happens if the request is not in trash, permission requirements, and whether the action is reversible. It signals a mutation only implicitly via 'restore'.
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 no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — brevity here reflects a lack of content, not tight structure.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description leaves key operational details (preconditions, side effects, failure modes) unaddressed.
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 there is one required parameter (request_id). The description says nothing about how to obtain or identify the request_id, so it does not compensate for the missing schema 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?
States a specific verb ('restore') and resource ('request') plus the source state ('from trash'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling restore_change. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus delete_request, trash-related tools, or its sibling restore_change. The 'from trash' phrase implies the precondition (the request must already be trashed) but this is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.