Redo the last undone editor action within the Unreal Editor to restore changes that were reverted using the undo command.
Redo the last undone editor action.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "redo"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, but 'Redo the last undone editor action' adds minimal insight beyond the tool's name. It doesn't disclose what happens when there's nothing to redo, whether the action clears the redo stack, or any side effects on the undo history.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words - front-loaded and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool. A slight deduction for being at the edge of under-specification, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates this.
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 simple zero-parameter redo tool, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It doesn't mention the relationship to `undo`, behavior when the redo stack is empty, or what the return value indicates. Given the complexity is low, a 3 is fair.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% with nothing for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and no deduction is warranted.
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 uses a specific verb+object construction ('Redo the last undone editor action') that clearly identifies the operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `undo` or `get_undo_history`, though the redo/undo pairing is strongly implied.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like `undo` or `get_undo_history`. The tool could have mentioned that it follows an undo operation or that it only works after an undo has occurred, but no such context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.