Restore the most recently undone change in a SketchUp model when the active version supports redo. Supply model_id and optional active_path to target the operation.
Redo when supported by this SketchUp version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | No | ||
| active_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / active_pathAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 32,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / model_idAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral trait not in the annotations — that redo may be unavailable depending on SketchUp version — but says nothing about what state is altered or how to confirm success.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded with the verb, but at this length it is under-specified rather than concise. For a destructive, two-parameter tool this size is not appropriate.
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?
A destructive mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage, no output schema, and no explanation of the undo/redo stack it acts on. The description leaves the agent without enough information to invoke it correctly or predict its effect.
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% and neither model_id nor active_path is referenced anywhere in the description. With two undocumented parameters and no compensating text, the agent gets no semantic help from the description at all.
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 verb 'Redo' is specific and the sibling model_undo makes the intended direction clear, but the description never names the resource or scope (which model, what undo stack). 'When supported by this SketchUp version' cheapens an otherwise identifiable operation into a vague conditional.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as model_undo or sketchup_run_ruby. The only qualifying statement, 'when supported by this SketchUp version', hints at a precondition but never tells the agent how to detect or handle unsupported versions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.