Kadal Deck

Roll a deck back to an earlier version

rollback_deck

Destructive

Serve an earlier version of a deck again, to everyone who opens it, at once. Use it to undo a bad publish, taking the number from list_versions; use update_deck instead for settings such as title or visibility. Needs decks:write (60 changes a minute). Nothing is deleted: the old content is republished as a NEW version (origin rollback), so each call adds a version and a rollback is undone by another rollback_deck to the version you left.

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": {
      "deck": "<deck>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "rollback_deck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deck`	Yes	The deck's id (starts with `d`) or its slug, as list_decks returns them; case-insensitive. A deck outside this workspace fails with “No deck …” — call list_decks.
`version`	Yes	The version whose content to serve, from list_versions. One it doesn't list (pruned, or never published) fails with “No such version”.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`deck`	Yes
`version`	Yes	The new version now being served.
`previous`	Yes
`restored`	Yes	The version whose content it serves.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 25, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / deck / description

Previous value: -"The deck's id (d…) or its slug, as list_decks shows them."New value: +"The deck's id (starts with `d`) or its slug, as list_decks returns them; case-insensitive. A deck outside this workspace fails with “No deck …” — call list_decks."

changedInput schema / properties / version / description

Previous value: -"The version number to serve."New value: +"The version whose content to serve, from list_versions. One it doesn't list (pruned, or never published) fails with “No such version”."

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the required scope `decks:write`, the rate limit (60 changes/minute), that nothing is deleted, that the content is republished as a NEW version with origin `rollback`, and that the operation is reversible by another rollback_deck. This resolves the tension with destructiveHint=true by explaining exactly what changes and what does not.

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?

Front-loads the primary behavior in the first sentence, then prerequisites, side effects, and reversibility in a compact block. No sentence repeats annotations or schema content verbatim.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values; it instead covers the things structured fields don't: required scope, rate limit, side effects on version history, and how to undo. Complete for a mutating tool.

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 both parameters are already documented with format, error text, and provenance (list_decks/list_versions). The description repeats the version source but adds no new parameter detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('serve an earlier version'), resource (deck), and audience scope ('to everyone who opens it, at once'), and names the sibling it complements (list_versions) and the one it does not replace (update_deck). An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use ('undo a bad publish, taking the number from list_versions') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative tool ('use update_deck instead for settings such as title or visibility'). Nothing is left to inference.

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

All Kadal Deck tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.