TrueNAS MCP

Restore Alert

restore_alert

Restore a dismissed TrueNAS alert using its alert ID so it returns to active alert monitoring and can be managed again.

Instructions

Restore a dismissed TrueNAS alert.

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": {
      "alert_id": "<alert_id>"
    },
    "name": "restore_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alert_id`	Yes	Alert id (from list_alerts).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does almost none of it. It does not say whether restore requires privileges, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the alert is already active or no longer exists, or whether restoration triggers re-notification.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently structured, though it is so terse that it leaves obvious questions unanswered rather than being tightly complete.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a state-changing alert operation with zero annotations and no error-mode guidance, the description is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already tells the agent that alert_id comes from list_alerts. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ("Restore") and resource ("dismissed TrueNAS alert"), and the qualifier "dismissed" distinguishes it from generic alert operations. It does not explicitly name the inverse sibling dismiss_alert, but the intent is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word "dismissed" implies the precondition (the alert must currently be dismissed), which is a weak form of when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit statement of alternatives such as dismiss_alert or of what to do if the alert is not dismissed.

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