Undo or redo completed MCP edit operations in the active drawing to roll back or restore changes, with configurable steps (1-20).
Undo or redo completed MCP edit operations in the active drawing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No | ||
| action | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds little beyond 'completed MCP edit operations' scope. It does not state whether undo is limited by session history, whether it affects unsaved changes, or what happens at history boundaries.
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?
One tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. No waste, but minimal given the tool's mutating nature.
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?
A mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations covering step limits or history scope, and no parameter documentation. The description is only minimally complete for calling it correctly.
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 coverage is 0% and the description names neither 'action' (undo/redo enum) nor 'steps'. The agent must open the schema to learn the required action enum and the 1-20 step bound. The description should have at least mentioned the action/steps shape.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: undo/redo of completed MCP edit operations in the active drawing. Clear scope, though does not differentiate from cad_edit or cad_command among siblings.
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?
Implies use for reverting or re-applying edits via 'completed MCP edit operations', giving some context, but no explicit when-to-use vs cad_edit, no exclusions, and the action parameter name is left for the schema to explain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.