shiply — Static Site Hosting & Deployment

Roll back a site

rollback_site

Idempotent

Roll back your live site to any earlier published version instantly using the site slug and version ID.

Instructions

Flip a previously-published version of a site live again, instantly. Every publish is a version; pass the versionId to roll back to. Requires an API key (owned sites only).

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "versionId": "<versionId>"
    },
    "name": "rollback_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	The site slug to roll back.
`versionId`	Yes	The version id to make live (from an earlier publish).
`apiKey`	No	shiply API key (shp_…). Falls back to SHIPLY_API_KEY.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond annotations: it states the operation is instant, requires authentication via API key, and is limited to owned sites. Annotations include idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with this by implying the result is a deterministic state. No contradiction.

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 concise: two sentences, no extraneous words. It front-loads the primary purpose and follows with key details. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given the schema fully documents parameters and the output schema is absent, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, prerequisites, and effects. It explains the version concept and the instant nature of the rollback.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description echoes the versionId parameter but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('roll back'), the resource ('previously-published version of a site'), and the effect ('live again, instantly'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like publish_site by specifying it's a rollback operation, not a new publish.

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 indicates when to use this tool ('to roll back to a previously-published version') and mentions a prerequisite ('requires an API key (owned sites only)'). While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the sibling tools provide context for alternatives.

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

Deploy Server