Revert an applied transaction in Mastercam by providing the receipt ID to undo changes and restore the prior state.
Roll back an applied transaction using its server-held receipt
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transactionId | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| live | No | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| receipt | No | ||
| documentRevision | No | ||
| operationFingerprint | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the useful context that rollback relies on a server-held receipt, but it does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, what other changes may be affected, or what the post-rollback state looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with one required parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The annotations cover destructive/idempotent behavior and there is an output schema, so the return shape is handled. Still, the description does not state prerequisites, explain what the receipt field is, or clarify side effects. For a destructive tool this is acceptable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain how transactionId and idempotencyKey relate to the 'server-held receipt'. It mentions a receipt but never maps it to a parameter, and it gives no guidance on when idempotencyKey is needed. The parameter names and regex patterns are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('roll back'), a specific resource ('applied transaction'), and a mechanism ('server-held receipt'). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling verification and preview tools; an agent knows immediately what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'applied transaction' implies the tool is for undoing transactions that have already been committed, so the usage context is inferable. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when a sibling like verify_change or analyze_regeneration_impact would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.