Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

rollback_design_version

Destructive

Restore a design to an earlier version by creating a new version that matches it while preserving full history. Use it to undo changes without losing prior revisions.

Instructions

Rollback a design to a previous version.

        Creates a *new* version whose source matches the target version,
        preserving full history.  The new version's notes record the
        rollback origin.

        Args:
            design_id: The design to rollback.
            to_version_id: The version number (integer) or
                ``design_id:N`` ref to restore.

        Returns:
            The newly created rollback version record.

INLINE 3D STAGE: on success this tool opens Kiln's interactive 3D stage — an inline viewer panel the user can orbit, zoom, and turn over — in hosts that render MCP Apps panels (Kiln's hosted connection attaches a browser stage link for hosts that don't). Oversized meshes are decimated automatically for the stage; the PNG preview is the floor, not the whole experience.

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": {
      "design_id": "<design_id>",
      "to_version_id": "<to_version_id>"
    },
    "name": "rollback_design_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
design_idYesThe design to rollback.
to_version_idYesThe version number (integer) or ``design_id:N`` ref to restore.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / design_id / description
      Added value: +"The design to rollback."
    • addedInput schema / properties / to_version_id / description
      Added value: +"The version number (integer) or ``design_id:N`` ref to restore."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description explains what the 'destructive' part actually means: the design's content changes but full history is preserved and the rollback origin is recorded in the new version's notes. It also discloses a real side effect — an interactive 3D stage panel opens on success — which is not encoded anywhere in the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The core is front-loaded and tight, and the Returns note earns its place since no output schema exists. However, the Args section redundantly duplicates the schema, and the inline 3D stage paragraph is chatty and marketing-toned ("the PNG preview is the floor, not the whole experience"), diluting the operational content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the return value, the history semantics, and the stage side effect. Gaps remain around failure modes and preconditions, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the Args block simply restates the schema descriptions word for word, adding no new meaning. The one nuance worth crediting — that to_version_id may be an integer or a ``design_id:N`` ref — is already present in the schema, so this is a baseline 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Rollback a design to a previous version") and immediately clarifies the non-obvious mechanic: a *new* version is created rather than history being rewritten. That distinguishes it from siblings like restore_from_reflog_entry or undo_last_head_change, which an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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 by the verb; the description never says when to prefer this over restore_from_reflog_entry, undo_last_head_change, or best_design_version, nor does it state prerequisites (unlocked design, permissions, whether the target version must exist on the same branch). An agent can infer intent but not tool selection.

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