Check how many undo steps are available for a specific image, so you can know if you can revert recent edits before making changes.
Get the number of available undo operations for an image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_id | Yes | ID of the image |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_id | Yes | Image ID | |
| undo_count | Yes | Number of available undo operations |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it's a read-only operation (getting a count), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the image_id is invalid, whether the count resets after certain operations, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.
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 description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the action and resource. Perfectly concise.
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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description is adequate for an agent to understand what it does. However, it doesn't mention what the return value looks like (though the output schema exists, so that's covered) or any edge cases. For a simple read tool, this is sufficient but not exceptional.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (image_id). The description doesn't add much beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify that the count is for 'an image', which maps to the image_id parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the number of available undo operations for an image. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('number of available undo operations for an image'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the function is specific enough that it's unlikely to be confused with others like 'undo' or 'reset_callout_counter'.
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 description implies usage context: it's for checking undo availability before performing an undo operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'undo' or 'reset_callout_counter'. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.