Revert the CAD scene to its prior checkpoint after an edit or mistake, restoring earlier drawing state when needed.
Restore the scene to the previous undo checkpoint.
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": "undo"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the scene is restored, but not whether the checkpoint is consumed, whether the action is itself undoable via 'redo', what happens when no checkpoint exists, or how it interacts with open transactions — all material for a state-mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the action and target state up front and no wasted words. It is perhaps slightly too terse given the unstated safety/ordering semantics, but structurally it is clean.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is minimally sufficient to call correctly, but it leaves out the checkpoint/redo/transaction interactions that determine whether calling it is the right move at a given moment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. No parameter meaning is needed or missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('the scene') plus the target state ('previous undo checkpoint'), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'redo' or clarify its relationship to 'push_undo_checkpoint'/'rollback_transaction', so an agent must infer the boundaries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to call this versus the obvious alternatives ('redo' to move forward again, 'rollback_transaction' for transaction-scoped reverts, 'push_undo_checkpoint' to create the checkpoint it consumes). Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.