Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Saga MCP

Saga MCP

by spranab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

comment_restore

Idempotent

Restore deleted comments in your project tracker to recover lost context. Provide the comment ID to undo a previous removal.

Instructions

Restore a comment previously removed with comment_delete.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "comment_restore"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesComment ID to restore

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.10.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide the key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the useful precondition that the comment must have been removed with comment_delete, which is context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose outcomes such as whether the restored comment returns to its original position or any error behavior.

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 clear sentence with no filler. The action and precondition are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter mutation with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could improve slightly by stating what happens after a successful restore or what the response is, but the current combination of schema, annotations, and description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already states 'Comment ID to restore.' The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('comment'), and clarifies it applies to comments previously removed with comment_delete. This distinguishes it from comment_delete, comment_add, and comment_list without needing to open the schema.

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?

The description clearly indicates the intended use case: undoing a prior comment_delete. It references the relevant sibling tool and context. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the precondition is specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools