Skip to main content
Glama

ainote

by io.github.seunghan91

env_sync_txn_rollback

Destructive

Inverse-apply a prior env_sync transaction. Safety gates: ownership, idempotency, descendant-conflict (force opt-out).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNo
txn_idYes
device_idNoOptional calling device id for audit attribution. The X-Ainote-Device-Id header is the canonical source; this argument is the backwards-compatible fallback for clients that predate the header. If both are sent and disagree, the request is rejected (DEVICE_MISMATCH).
include_descendantsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / device_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional calling device id for audit attribution. The X-Ainote-Device-Id header is the canonical source; this argument is the backwards-compatible fallback for clients that predate the header. If both are sent and disagree, the request is rejected (DEVICE_MISMATCH).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by listing safety gates: ownership, idempotency, and descendant-conflict with force opt-out. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining under what conditions the destructive action is allowed or blocked.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of one clear sentence plus a brief list of safety gates. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive rollback tool with no output schema and 4 parameters (3 undocumented), the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't describe the effect of force/include_descendants on behavior, nor what the response or error cases look like. The safety gates add context but not complete operational clarity.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 25% (only device_id has a description). The description does not explain txn_id, force, or include_descendants explicitly. It hints at 'descendant-conflict (force opt-out)' linking force to descendant handling, but major parameter meaning is left to inference from the tool name.

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 states the tool's function as 'Inverse-apply a prior env_sync transaction,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like env_sync_txn_push by explicitly indicating a rollback/undo operation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'Inverse-apply a prior env_sync transaction' implies usage for undoing a prior transaction, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions safety gates but no comparison or exclusion relative to other sync tools.

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

All ainote toolsInspect
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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools clearly target distinct resources (tasks, docs, graph, sync, env_sync, handoffs, judgments, projects, vault). A few pairs could confuse, like sync_push vs vault_sync (which has a push action) and env_sync_write vs env_sync_txn_push, but descriptions mostly clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are predominantly snake_case with a noun_verb pattern (e.g., sync_push, task_write), but there are notable inconsistencies: plural/singular mismatches (dev_docs_read vs dev_doc_write, tasks_read vs task_write), verb-first names (list_papers, get_setup_guide, judgment_submit), and a dotted sub-namespace (env_sync.secret_pull) mixed with flat names (env_sync_txn_push).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a large surface for a personal note/sync server. While it spans many domains (auth, tasks, docs, sync, env_sync, graph, etc.), the sheer number feels heavy and likely overwhelms agents with too many choices, especially when several tools are consolidated sub-action surfaces.

Completeness3/5

Most domains have reasonable CRUD coverage (tasks, dev docs, graph, sync, env_sync, vault). However, noticeable gaps exist: memory has no write tool (only read), papers only support listing (no create/update/delete), assumptions have write but no dedicated read or delete, and judgment is effectively submit-and-list only.

Resources