mib2c-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Reset items

reset_items

Restores selected points or touch areas to their saved-file positions in one undo step; specifying a corner restores its entire touch area.

Instructions

Puts the given points or touch areas back where the saved file has them (one undo step). A corner puts its whole touch area back.

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": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "reset_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that the operation is a single undo step and that a corner item expands to reset its whole touch area, which is real behavioral value. It says nothing about invalid ids, what happens to items not listed, or permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, the primary behavior front-loaded and the corner edge case second. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a single-argument mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics and undo behavior but omits failure modes and whether 'saved file' means the last save or current file state. Adequate, with visible gaps for a state-changing tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is reported as 0% at the top level, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the accepted union of points and touch areas and clarifies the non-obvious aggregate effect of including a corner (whole touch area is restored). It still leaves the meaning of 'saved file' somewhat ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete action (put back to where the saved file has them) on a concrete resource (points or touch areas), which is distinct from move_items, align_items, and set_points. It is not fully disambiguated from the sibling undo tool, but the item-scoped restore semantics are clear enough to select it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this restores previously saved positions for a specific subset of items, as opposed to undo (global history step) or revert_file (whole file). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement names those alternatives.

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