palo-alto-bgp-ipsec

panorama_restore_candidate_operation

Destructive

Restore specific candidate changes from an operation ID, reversing only captured mutations in reverse order while leaving unrelated modifications untouched.

Instructions

[DESTRUCTIVE] Restores only the XPath values captured for one operation_id. Reverses mutations in reverse order. Does not issue a global candidate revert or touch unrelated changes. Requires a valid operation_id.

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": {
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>"
    },
    "name": "panorama_restore_candidate_operation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`firewall`	No	Target firewall name (from firewalls.json). Required when multiple firewalls are configured; optional otherwise.
`operation_id`	Yes	Operation ID returned by a prior apply call

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description matches the destructiveHint annotation and adds valuable behavioral detail: reversal happens in reverse order, only captured XPath values are restored, unrelated changes are untouched, and a valid operation_id is required. This goes beyond the bare annotation and gives an agent a realistic model of the tool's 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 four short sentences with no filler. The destructive marker and core action are front-loaded, followed by scope constraints and a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with destructive annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: scope, ordering, exclusions, and required input. It could optionally mention error behavior for an invalid operation_id, but that is not a critical 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%, with both operation_id and firewall documented. The description reinforces operation_id's role but does not add meaningful semantics 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('restores'), the resource ('XPath values captured for one operation_id'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from a global candidate revert. This makes it easy to tell apart from siblings like panorama_verify_candidate_operation or remove candidate 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 gives clear operational context: use it to restore a single prior operation by operation_id, and it explicitly says it does not perform a global revert or touch unrelated changes. It does not name an alternative tool or provide an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but the scope is well constrained.

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

Deploy Server