Revert the last change or multiple steps in Houdini to restore the previous scene state.
Undo the last change(s) made in Houdini.
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": "undo"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No |
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 full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reverses the last change(s), but omits whether the undo itself can be redone, what happens when history is empty, whether it affects selection or UI state, and whether any permissions or side effects apply.
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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a short action label.
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 no required parameters and no output schema, so minimal description may be acceptable. However, with no annotations and an undocumented 'steps' parameter, the description leaves important invocation details unstated.
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% for the single 'steps' parameter. The phrase 'change(s)' hints that multiple changes may be undone, but the description never names or defines 'steps', its valid range, or how values like 0 or negative numbers behave.
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 states a specific verb, 'Undo', and resource, 'the last change(s) made in Houdini', so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling, though no redo-like sibling is present in the provided list.
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?
It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. Usage is only implied by the action itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.