Nopaque TotalPath

Undo a Sheet Import

undoImport

Destructive

Delete the mission-test configs a committed import created, in the background. Takes id. A config changed since the import, or already deleted, is kept and listed in undo.keptIds. Returns at once with status undoing; poll getImport until undone. Use only when the user has asked to undo the import.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "undoImport"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Import identifier.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds behavior annotations cannot express: the work happens in the background, the call returns immediately with status 'undoing', and configs modified or already deleted are preserved rather than removed. The retention rule and the 'undo.keptIds' reporting are exactly the warnings an agent needs before firing a destructive async call.

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?

Front-loads the destructive action, then the retention exception, then the async/poll contract, then the usage gate. Every clause carries distinct information and none repeats the name or title.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive asynchronous tool with an output schema, the definition covers what gets deleted, what is spared, the immediate return value, and the follow-up polling step. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and then track this operation is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. 'Takes `id`' adds no format, source, or constraint meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource with scope: 'Delete the mission-test configs a committed import created, in the background.' The phrase 'a committed import created' precisely distinguishes it from commitImport and cancelMapping, so an agent can select it without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit usage gate — 'Use only when the user has asked to undo the import' — and names getImport as the tool to poll afterward. It falls short of 5 because it does not contrast against non-undo alternatives (for example a mapping cancel) for the same resource family.

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

All Nopaque TotalPath tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.