Skip to main content
Glama

Genaya

Undo a change that ran

undo_action
DestructiveIdempotent

Reverse one change that already ran, within its undo window (15 minutes): pass its action_id. A created record is removed, an edit is put back, a held message is withdrawn. Sent messages cannot be undone. Free.

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": {
      "action_id": "<action_id>"
    },
    "name": "undo_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
action_idYesThe action_id of the change to reverse.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
statusYes
receiptYes
action_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description spells out the concrete effect per action type: a created record is removed, an edit is put back, a held message is withdrawn. It also discloses the 15-minute window and the fact that the call is free, which annotations do not carry.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler. The window constraint and the required parameter are front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The one gap is failure behavior - what happens when the window has expired or the id is unknown - which an agent would want to know before calling.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'pass its action_id' and does not say where an agent obtains a valid action_id (e.g., from list_actions).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Reverse one change that already ran.' The phrase 'already ran' implicitly distinguishes it from cancel_action (which would target a not-yet-run action), but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives the operative constraint - must be within the 15-minute undo window - and one exclusion: 'Sent messages cannot be undone.' What's missing is explicit routing between this and cancel_action for an action that hasn't run yet.

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