Skip to main content
Glama
wiktorekdev

nuvio-mcp

by wiktorekdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Restore account backup

nuvio_restore_backup
Destructive

Restore account data from a backup, overwriting profiles, addons, library, and settings. Supports dry-run and requires a confirmation token to execute the irreversible restore.

Instructions

Replace account data from a backup produced by nuvio_export_backup. Only available on self-hosted backends that expose sync_restore_account_backup. High risk: overwrites profiles/addons/library/settings. Cannot be undone: call it once to get a short-lived confirmation token, then call again with that token. Supports dry_run.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
backupYesBackup JSON from nuvio_export_backup
dry_runNoReturn the diff without writing anything (no snapshot, no audit entry).
confirmation_tokenNoToken from a previous call of this tool. Irreversible operations require a two-phase prepare/execute: call once to receive the token, then call again with it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Required for reversible destructive changes. Without it a preview is returned.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return the diff without writing anything (no snapshot, no audit entry).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by detailing the overwritten components (profiles/addons/library/settings), the irreversible nature with a token-based two-phase process, and the dry_run behavior. This adds crucial context about the tool's operational semantics that annotations alone do not convey.

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 and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then states availability, risk, the irreversible token process, and dry_run support. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's high risk and lack of an output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: what it does, when it's available, what it overwrites, how the token flow works, and the dry_run safety net. It implicitly indicates that the first call returns a token, though it does not explicitly state the return value format, which is a minor gap.

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 explains each parameter (backup from nuvio_export_backup, dry_run returns diff, confirmation_token for two-phase). The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 ('Replace account data') on a specific resource ('account data') from a specific source ('backup produced by nuvio_export_backup'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from all siblings, which are unrelated operations (profiles, addons, settings, etc.), and the mention of the backup origin avoids confusion with other restore-like tools.

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 provides clear conditions for use: only on self-hosted backends exposing sync_restore_account_backup, and it explains the two-phase token flow. It also mentions dry_run as a safe option. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but since there are no alternative restore tools, the guidance is sufficient.

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