Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIops-tools

xcpng-aiops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

undo_apply

Destructive

Apply a recorded undo by dispatching its inverse tool through its governed audit tier; use dry_run to preview before execution.

Instructions

[WRITE][risk=medium] Apply a recorded undo by dispatching its inverse tool.

The inverse runs through its own governed tool, so it is audited under its
own risk tier. Pass dry_run=True to preview the inverse call without
executing it. A token can only be applied once.

Args:
    undo_id: The undoId from undo_list (or an ``_undo_id`` in a write result).
    dry_run: If True, preview the inverse tool + params without running it.
    target: Passed through to the inverse tool when it accepts a target.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNo
dry_runNo
undo_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that the inverse runs through its own governed tool with separate audit and risk tier, that dry_run previews without executing, and that tokens are single-use. This is meaningful context beyond structured fields.

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-loads the write/risk tag, then explains the governed inverse behavior, then lists Args. Every sentence earns its place, though the description is slightly long for three parameters.

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?

For a three-parameter write tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers invocation, safety context, and parameter meaning. It omits dry_run return format and auth details, but is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description documents all three parameters: undo_id source, dry_run preview behavior, and target pass-through when the inverse accepts it. It fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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: applying a recorded undo by dispatching its inverse tool. Distinguishes from undo_list by describing apply versus list. The [WRITE][risk=medium] tag reinforces the operation type.

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?

Explains dry_run=True previews the inverse call and that a token can only be applied once. Sources undo_id from undo_list or a write result. Stops short of explicit when-not guidance, but gives clear context for use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools