Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mib2c-mcp

mib2c-mcp

by TomasSlekys
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Revert image

revert_image

Revert an image's unsaved replacement by path or index to restore its previous version in the MIB2 Configurator.

Instructions

Takes back an image's unsaved replacement.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "revert_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoOr a path from images.res, e.g. "0203070200/GenericCarAdjuster/AmbianceLight/Interior_LHD.png"
indexNoThe image index in images.mcf

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the replacement being reverted is 'unsaved', which is useful, but it does not explain what happens when no unsaved replacement exists, whether any parameters are required, or what the result 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity is appropriate in structure, though the content is under-specified for a mutation tool.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should state more about usage, required inputs, and effects. As written, it leaves key behavioral and selection details to inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'path' and 'index'. The description adds no further meaning about how these parameters identify the image or what happens when both are supplied.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The phrase 'takes back an image's unsaved replacement' conveys the general idea of reverting a pending image replacement, but the verb is non-standard and the object is ambiguous. It does not clearly differentiate this tool from siblings such as revert_file, undo, redo, or replace_image.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus revert_file, undo, redo, or other image-related siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as whether a replacement must have been made first, nor any exclusion conditions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools