ShowMeOnMap

Undo the most recent op (gated)

undo

Rewind the workspace cursor by one, re-materializing the state as it was before the last mutation. Does NOT delete any ops — redo will fast-forward. Calling undo at the workspace genesis (cursor === 0, only the CreateWorkspace op is in scope) is a no-op that surfaces an error rather than silently doing nothing. GATED: pass confirmed:true to proceed; otherwise a needs_confirmation envelope is returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`map_id`	Yes
`confirmed`	No	Set to true to confirm this sensitive action. If omitted or false, the call returns a needs_confirmation envelope. Autonomous undo without user intent is a footgun — an agent that decides to "fix" something can erase prior work.
`rationale`	Yes	Short audit-log label (≤300 chars) stating the user-facing goal this call serves, e.g. "add wildfire layer for the user's California query". Required on every call. Stored in the operations log so map edits stay traceable — we never see your chat history.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint and destructiveHint as false, which the description complements by explaining that undo does not delete ops but re-materializes state. It also discloses the gating behavior and the autonomous footgun warning. This adds value beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers behavior, edge cases, gating, and interaction with redo without extraneous words. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (gated undo, redo interaction, genesis case), the description covers the key behavioral aspects. It does not include return value details, but there is no output schema, so that is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema covers 67% of parameters; the description adds meaning for 'confirmed' (gating, returns needs_confirmation envelope) and 'rationale' (audit-log label, traceability). It does not explain 'map_id', but that is standard. The added context justifies a score above baseline.

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 specifies the verb 'Rewind the workspace cursor' and the resource 'state before the last mutation'. It distinguishes from sibling 'redo' by stating 'Does NOT delete any ops — redo will fast-forward', and explains the genesis edge case. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explains when to use (to undo the last mutation) and when not to (at genesis, returns error). It provides explicit guidance on the gated nature: 'pass confirmed:true to proceed'. However, it does not directly contrast with sibling mutation tools like mutate_map, but the context is sufficient.

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

All ShowMeOnMap tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few pairs such as select_within/focus_area and correlate_layers/add_fusion_layer overlap in function, differing mainly by input type or output (read vs. write). The descriptions adequately explain these differences, so agents can distinguish them with careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_layer, filter_layer, export_image, remove_annotation). Minor exceptions like undo/redo/tag are conventional single verbs and do not detract from the overall predictability.

Tool Count4/5

At 25 tools, the server is on the heavy side, but each tool serves a distinct operation in a comprehensive mapping workspace—covering creation, editing, analysis, export, and history. The number feels justified by the broad feature set rather than excessive.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full lifecycle of layers and workspace state, including add/remove/rename/restyle/filter, build/get/mutate/undo/redo, export, and tagging. Minor gaps such as annotation editing, layer reordering, or direct data updates exist, but they are not critical blockers for typical workflows.

Resources

Need Help?