history_redoRestores the change that was last undone in the open project, letting you reapply an action after an accidental undo.
Redo the change that was last undone in the open project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | The id of an open project, from project_open. Defaults to the project used most recently. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds scoping ('in the open project') and stack semantics, but says nothing about failure behavior when nothing has been undone or what the call returns, which matters for a state-mutating history operation.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no filler. It conveys scope and ordering semantics without redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
For a one-optional-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is largely sufficient. The only meaningful gaps are empty-stack behavior and confirmation of what a successful redo affects, which are modest for this complexity.
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 100% and the single optional 'project' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default. The description only gestures at project scope via 'open project', so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.
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 ('Redo') plus the exact resource affected ('the change that was last undone') and its scope ('in the open project'). It is clearly distinguishable from history_undo by the 'last undone' qualifier, though it never names the sibling explicitly.
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 phrase 'last undone' implies the tool is used to reverse a history_undo, which is useful implicit routability. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on what happens when the redo stack is empty, and no direct reference to history_undo as the counterpart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.