omnifocus_sessionUndo or redo the last change, clean up the database, or reveal a task, project, or folder in OmniFocus.
Undo or redo the last OmniFocus change, run database clean-up, or reveal an item in the OmniFocus UI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| item_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, so they provide no safety profile. The description states what actions exist but does not disclose side effects, such as whether clean-up modifies or deletes data, whether undo/redo is irreversible, or what happens to the current OmniFocus state. This is too thin for a mutating session utility.
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?
A single sentence with three clear action groups and no filler. It is efficient and front-loaded, though slightly too terse to fully carry the tool's complexity.
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?
Given four parameters, an action enum, and no parameter documentation, the description is not sufficient for an agent to know which parameters are required for each action. The output schema helps with return values, but the input semantics are largely unspecified.
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%, and the description does not explain how id, name, or item_type map to the four actions. For a multi-mode tool where parameters are likely action-dependent, the description leaves the invocation contract completely undocumented.
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 names three concrete actions (undo/redo, clean-up, reveal) with a specific resource (OmniFocus), so an agent can distinguish this session-level utility from query/add/edit siblings without opening the schema.
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 actions listed imply when the tool is useful, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools, nor does it state conditions or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.