Skip to main content
Glama

MIDAS CIVIL NX tools (MIDAS IT Europe)

Undo a Eurocode combinations write

ec_combinations_undo
Destructive

Undoes the latest ec_combinations_apply run (or the run named) with the plugin's undo: deletes the rows it wrote that still carry its names, then restores the rows it deleted at their 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": "ec_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, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the exact destruction semantics (deletes rows it wrote that still carry its names, restores deleted rows at original keys) and the safety behavior that it previews unless apply:true. The 'rows that still carry its names' qualifier usefully warns that partial undo is possible.

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 no filler: the primary behavior, the undo mechanics, and the dry-run default are all front-loaded. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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, no-output-schema tool this covers purpose, target selection, side effects, and the preview gate. Only the discoverability of runId values and the shape of the preview/result are left unstated, which is minor.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it gives functional meaning to both parameters: apply as the preview/commit switch and runId as the run selector with a latest-run default. It does not say how a runId is obtained or formatted, which is the one remaining 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?

States a specific verb (undoes) and a specific resource (the latest ec_combinations_apply run, or a named run), and explicitly names the sibling tool whose effects it reverses. An agent can distinguish it from ec_combinations_apply and ec_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?

Implicitly establishes the precondition that an ec_combinations_apply run must exist, and clarifies the default target (latest run) versus the explicit one (runId). It does not spell out failure modes (e.g. what happens when no prior run exists) or exclusions, so it stops just short of a full 5.

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