Skip to main content
Glama

undo_list

Read-only

List recorded, not-yet-applied undo tokens to review pending rollbacks, see each inverse action, and get the undoId for undo_apply; check effectVerified before applying.

Instructions

[READ] List recorded, not-yet-applied undo tokens (most recent first).

Each entry names the original tool, the inverse tool that ``undo_apply``
would run, and a human note. Use the ``undoId`` with ``undo_apply``.

Each entry carries ``effectVerified``. False means the original write
lost its response, so the change it reverses is PROBABLE, not confirmed —
check the live state before applying, and do not report the result as a
restore of a state that may never have been reached.

Args:
    limit: Max rows to return (default 50).
    target: Unused (undo state is host-local); accepted for CLI uniformity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
targetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes further by explaining effectVerified and the PROBABLE-vs-confirmed semantics of a reversed write, plus a warning not to misreport results. This is real behavioral context beyond structured data, but permissions and error behavior are unaddressed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the read marker and purpose, then an Args block. The effectVerified paragraph is longer than the rest but each sentence carries non-obvious semantics, so little is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned entry fields (original tool, inverse tool, human note, undoId, effectVerified) and the sort order, which is exactly the missing context an agent needs to interpret results.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: it documents limit ('Max rows to return', default 50) and explains that target is inert and only present for CLI uniformity — critical to prevent an agent from inventing a filtering behavior for target.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('List recorded, not-yet-applied undo tokens'), plus ordering semantics (most recent first). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling undo_apply, which consumes the tokens this tool produces.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use the undoId with undo_apply', and adds a conditional warning to verify live state before applying when effectVerified is false. Clear usage context, though it never states when not to call this tool.

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