Skip to main content
Glama

MIDAS CIVIL NX tools (MIDAS IT Europe)

Undo a CS 454 combinations write

cs454_combinations_undo
Destructive

Undoes the latest cs454_combinations_apply run (or the run named) with the plugin's cleanup: deletes the rows it wrote that still carry its names (referencing rows first), then restores every table it cleared at the original keys. Previews unless apply: true.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cs454_combinations_undo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applyNo
runIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that: it discloses that rows written by the run are deleted with referencing rows first, that cleared tables are restored at their original keys, and that the operation previews unless apply is true. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Two dense sentences with the action and scope front-loaded, followed by the cleanup mechanics and the preview default. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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?

With no output schema and only safety annotations, the description supplies the deletion order, restoration behavior, and dry-run default. It leaves open what the preview returns and how partial failures are reported, which is a minor but real gap for a destructive tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it does: apply is explained as a preview-vs-execute switch and runId as the alternative to the default 'latest' run. It does not give the runId format or say what happens if a nonexistent ID is passed, leaving a small gap.

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?

Names a specific verb (undoes), the exact target resource (the latest cs454_combinations_apply run, or a named one), and the mechanics of the undo. An agent can distinguish this from cs454_combinations_apply and cs454_combinations_read 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The tie to a prior apply run and the 'or the run named' alternative gives clear context for when this is the right tool. It stops short of stating exclusions, such as what to do if no apply run exists or when to prefer a manual removal path.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources