PampaPilot MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Deshacer transacción propia

undo_transaction

Destructive

Undo the last transaction for a project when the history is intact, using the project reference and transaction request ID to revert to the prior state.

Instructions

Deshace sólo la última transacción propia si el historial sigue intacto.

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": {
      "project_ref": "<project_ref>",
      "transaction_request_id": "<transaction_request_id>"
    },
    "name": "undo_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_ref`	Yes
`transaction_request_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds behavioral constraints: only the last transaction and only if history is intact. This provides useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail post-undo effects.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and condition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is incomplete for correct invocation: it does not explain what project_ref or transaction_request_id mean, and the phrase 'last transaction' conflicts with the presence of a transaction_request_id parameter. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but parameter semantics and state conditions are insufficient.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (project_ref, transaction_request_id). Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify the relationship between 'last transaction' and transaction_request_id, which is a key gap.

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?

The description clearly states the action (undo), the specific resource (own last transaction), and a condition (history intact). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only undo-operation tool.

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?

The description provides a clear usage context: only for undoing the last own transaction, and only when the history remains intact. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the condition serves as a guideline.

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