NextDNS-Agent-MCP

undo

Destructive

Revert a NextDNS profile change by change ID. If later edits exist, it stops and reports differences; force restores old state, and reverting creation deletes the profile with double confirmation.

Instructions

Put a profile back the way it was before one change (IDs from changes). Only when the user asked. If the profile was changed again since (in the NextDNS dashboard or by a later change), undo stops and says what differs; force=true puts the old state back anyway, which also drops those later changes. Undoing the creation of a profile deletes it, so it needs a double confirmation like delete_profile: the first call gives a code, and only after the user says yes, call again with confirm_code.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`force`	No	true: put the old state back even if the profile changed since, which also drops those later changes.
`change_id`	Yes	The ID of the change to undo, from changes.
`confirm_code`	No	Leave empty on the first call. After the user says yes, pass the code the first call gave you.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / change_id / description

Added value: +"The ID of the change to undo, from changes."

addedInput schema / properties / confirm_code / description

Added value: +"Leave empty on the first call. After the user says yes, pass the code the first call gave you."

addedInput schema / properties / force / description

Added value: +"true: put the old state back even if the profile changed since, which also drops those later changes."

First observedv0.8.1Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the destructive annotation: it discloses conflict detection, that force discards later changes, that undoing profile creation deletes the profile, and that a two-step confirmation code is required. This aligns with destructiveHint=true and materially helps safe invocation.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then covers usage, conflict behavior, and confirmation flow in four focused sentences. Every sentence carries necessary safety or usage information.

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?

Given the destructive nature and available annotations/output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the critical edge cases, confirmation sequence, and force consequences without needing to explain return values.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already explain force, change_id, and confirm_code. The description restates the same semantics rather than adding parameter-specific constraints, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: putting a profile back before one change, with change IDs coming from the sibling changes tool. It is clearly distinct from listing changes or deleting a profile.

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 limits use to when the user asked, explains what happens if the profile changed since, and describes force as the override. The double-confirmation flow for undoing profile creation is also clearly specified.

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