SuperSkill

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rollback

Destructive

Store commit hashes with purpose and scope to make reverting safer. Mark follow-up work after a checkpoint to track changes.

Instructions

Manage rollback checkpoints. Store commit hashes with purpose/scope so rollback is safer. Mark when follow-up work starts after a checkpoint.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "rollback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	No	Scope of changes in the checkpoint
`action`	Yes	Action
`project`	No	Project slug (auto-detected if omitted)
`purpose`	No	Purpose of the checkpoint (required for add)
`commit_hash`	No	Commit hash (required for add)
`checkpoint_id`	No	Checkpoint ID to mark follow-up for
`workspace_path`	No	Absolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1Oct 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / workspace_path

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Absolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.6.1Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Only destructiveHint=true is provided as annotation, and the description does not reconcile that with its safety-oriented framing — it never says what gets mutated, deleted, or overwritten, nor whether checkpoints persist. There is no auth, retention, or output behavior disclosed, so the full behavioral burden is unmet.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource being managed, and no filler. It is efficient, though the middle sentence overlaps somewhat with the schema's field descriptions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is stored but omits what 'list' returns, ordering, and the destructive behavior flagged by annotations. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive per-parameter text (including which fields are required for 'add'), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no format, ordering, or cross-parameter detail beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (rollback checkpoints) and the operations (store commit hashes with purpose/scope, mark follow-up work). It usefully clarifies that the tool manages checkpoints rather than performing an actual rollback, which is not obvious from the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from any of the many sibling tools by name.

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?

It gives a rationale ('so rollback is safer') and implies the three flows through the action enum's semantics, but never states when to use this versus alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions. Usage is only inferable.

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