Reverse the last action in Inochi Creator to restore the previous project state.
Undo the last Inochi Creator 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": "creator_undo"
}
}| 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it undoes the last action, but does not explain behavior when there is no undo history, whether undo is destructive, or what the return value indicates. This is important for a state-mutating tool.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Undo') and the object ('last Inochi Creator action'). No wasted words or redundant information.
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?
The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), but it mutates state and has no annotations. The description does not address failure modes (e.g., no undo history) or return values, leaving a significant gap for an agent to predict the tool's behavior. It is minimally complete for invocation but not for consequence understanding.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add anything beyond what the schema already conveys (which is nothing).
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Undo the last Inochi Creator action.' It uses a specific verb (undo) and unique resource (the last Inochi Creator action), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like creator_redo.
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 description implies usage context (after an unwanted action) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling creator_redo exists, but the description does not reference it or any other exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.