Skip to main content
Glama

undo

Reverse the last action in REAPER to correct mistakes or restore previous project states.

Instructions

Trigger REAPER's undo. Returns the name of the action that was undone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool registration and handler for the "undo" tool.
    @mcp.tool()
    def undo() -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Trigger REAPER's undo. Returns the name of the action that was undone."""
        try:
            return _wrap(adapter.undo())
        except Exception as exc:
            return _err(exc)
  • Adapter method that calls the remote client to perform the undo action.
    def undo(self) -> dict[str, Any]:
        return self._client.call("undo")
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds useful behavioral detail that it 'Returns the name of the action that was undone' (output transparency). However, lacks safety disclosure (modifies project state by reverting) and error conditions (behavior when undo history is empty).

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with action, followed by return value. Every word earns its place. Perfect efficiency for a parameterless tool.

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?

Appropriate for low complexity (0 params) with output schema available. Covers execution effect and return value hint. Minor gap: no mention of empty undo stack behavior, but acceptable given output schema handles return structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters present. Per rubric, baseline is 4 for 0-param tools. Description correctly implies no configuration needed via concise 'Trigger REAPER's undo' statement.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('REAPER's undo'), plus return value disclosure. Distinguished from 40+ sibling mutation tools by its specific undo purpose.

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?

Provides implied usage through 'Trigger REAPER's undo' but lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance, prerequisites (e.g., requires prior actions), or named alternatives (e.g., redo would be a sibling not listed here).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/danielkinahan/ReaMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server