basecamp_restoreRestore trashed or archived Basecamp items, including child items such as todos, by passing the item's recording ID.
Bring an item back from the trash or from the archive. The items in it come back too, for example the todos of a todo list. To find the IDs of trashed items, use basecamp_list_recordings with status "trashed".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recording_id | Yes | ID of the item to restore |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the cascade effect ('The items in it come back too, for example the todos of a todo list'), which the annotations do not convey and which materially affects the outcome of the call.
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, front-loaded with the core action, then the cascade side effect, then the lookup guidance. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant with the schema or annotations.
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 single-parameter restore operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effect on child items, and how to source the ID. It does not mention permissions, error cases (e.g., restoring an item that was never trashed), or what the response contains, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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?
With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining where the recording_id value comes from (basecamp_list_recordings with status 'trashed'). It does not clarify type/format details, but the sourcing guidance is a real addition beyond the schema's 'ID of the item to restore'.
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?
The description opens with a concrete verb and resource ('Bring an item back from the trash or from the archive'), which is unambiguous and clearly the inverse of the sibling basecamp_trash. An agent can distinguish this tool from basecamp_list_recordings or basecamp_trash without inspecting any schema.
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?
It gives a clear operating context and a concrete route to the prerequisite data: use basecamp_list_recordings with status 'trashed' to obtain valid IDs. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it (e.g., that untrashed items need no restore), so it falls just short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.