opentakeoff-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

revise_proposal

Replace all still-pending shapes in a proposal with a validated new batch as one journal step; accepted shapes stay, and malformed entries leave the batch untouched.

Instructions

Replace EVERY still-pending shape in a proposal with a new set, as ONE journal step (#365) — the move for "I re-measured and got a better batch". The old pending shapes go, the replacements commit under the same proposal, and undo_last puts the previous batch back exactly. All-or-nothing: the whole replacement is validated (sheet, scale, vertex count, a height for surface_area) before the first pending shape is removed, so a malformed last shape leaves the batch untouched and the error says which entry and why. Shapes the estimator already accepted are ink — they stay, and they are not part of what this replaces. verts are image px like every other tool; roles and minimums match the measure tools (floor_area/deduct ≥3, linear/surface_area ≥2, count 1). An empty shapes list is refused — withdraw_proposal is the verb for that. Coordinates are image px at render scale 2.0: PDF pt × 2, origin top-left, y down (the browser canvas's native space). Sheet payloads carry dims in both px and pt.

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": {
      "proposal_id": "<proposal_id>",
      "shapes": "<shapes>"
    },
    "name": "revise_proposal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`shapes`	Yes
`proposal_id`	Yes	The batch, from propose_takeoff

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes
`label`	Yes
`replaced`	Yes	Pending shapes removed from the batch
`committed`	Yes	Replacement shapes committed, all attached to the same batch
`shape_ids`	Yes
`proposal_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.31Nov 7, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedInput schema / properties / shapes / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / shapes / items / properties / verts / items / additionalItems
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / committed / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / committed / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / replaced / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / replaced / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```
Addedv0.1.21Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

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 discloses all-or-nothing validation before any removal, that a malformed entry leaves the batch untouched, that errors identify the offending entry and reason, that accepted shapes are preserved, and that undo_last restores the previous batch exactly. These are precisely the behavioral facts an agent needs before calling a destructive batch mutation.

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 verb and the use case, then ordered by what matters: atomicity, preservation, geometry rules, coordinate space. Dense but nearly every sentence carries information; the trailing note about sheet payloads carrying dims in px and pt is the one line that is marginal for an input-side description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the remaining complexity — validation ordering, failure semantics, preservation of accepted shapes, reversal via undo_last, coordinate conventions — is fully covered. An agent could call this correctly on the first attempt from the description alone.

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 description coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates well beyond it: per-role vertex minimums (floor_area/deduct ≥3, linear/surface_area ≥2, count 1), the requirement of a height for surface_area, the coordinate space (image px at render scale 2.0, PDF pt × 2, top-left origin, y down), and the minimum-one-shape constraint. This adds real meaning over the raw schema, particularly for the undocumented role enum and verts semantics.

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 — replace every still-pending shape in a proposal with a new set — and frames it as a single journal step, which distinguishes it from edit_shape, delete_shape, and propose_takeoff. The quoted use case ("I re-measured and got a better batch") makes the intent unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly scopes when to use it (re-measurement producing a better batch) and when not to: an empty shapes list is refused and withdraw_proposal is named as the correct verb for that. It also clarifies that already-accepted shapes are out of scope for this tool, and points at undo_last as the reversal path.

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

Deploy Server