compose-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

reject_all_files

Discard all pending file changes in the current journal session, restoring every modified file to its exact prior state using byte-level backups.

Instructions

Destructive: Reverts ALL pending changes using byte-level backup (.bridge.bak).

What it does: Rolls back byte-for-byte all files modified in the current journal session.
When to use: To completely discard all recent changes and return every file to its exact prior state.
When NOT to use: Use reject_file_changes for a single file. Use reject_all_files_force if some rollbacks may fail.
Side effects: Destructive rollback. Overwrites all modified files with their .bridge.bak backups and clears journal.
Parameters: None.
Returns:
  JSON string with list of reverted files and status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it leads with 'Destructive:', explains the byte-for-byte rollback via .bridge.bak backups, states that all modified files are overwritten, that the journal is cleared, and that a status list is returned. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for an irreversible write.

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?

Labeled sections are front-loaded with the destructive warning and every line is scannable. The 'Returns' block is mild duplication given an output schema exists, but it costs little.

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 zero-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers trigger, exclusion, side effects, and return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description's 'Parameters: None.' confirms the no-argument contract rather than adding meaning. Nothing more is needed.

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+resource (rolls back all files modified in the current journal session) and explicitly differentiates itself from the two closest siblings, reject_file_changes and reject_all_files_force. An agent can select it without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections name the alternatives and the exact condition that routes to each ('reject_file_changes for a single file', 'reject_all_files_force if some rollbacks may fail'). Nothing is left to inference.

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