Revert the video project to the last checkpoint to discard recent changes.
Revert to the last checkpoint.
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": "undo"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose whether the revert is destructive, whether it affects unsaved changes, whether it is reversible, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.
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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent needs to know what 'checkpoint' refers to, what state is restored, and whether the operation is safe or destructive. The sibling list includes checkpoint and load_project, which makes the lack of differentiation more problematic.
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 the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add.
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 'Revert to the last checkpoint' uses a specific verb and resource, but it is vague about what 'checkpoint' means in this context and what exactly gets reverted. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like load_project or checkpoint, leaving an agent uncertain about scope.
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 about when to use undo versus alternatives like load_project or checkpoint. The description implies a context of reverting to a checkpoint but does not state prerequisites, limitations, or when it should be preferred over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.