Undo one or more Rhino operations by specifying the number of steps to revert, returning the last undo result.
Undo one or more operations.
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
steps: Number of undo steps (default 1).
Returns:
Dict with the result of the last undo command.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the undo action and return value but does not mention side effects such as clearing redo history, behavior when the undo stack is empty, or whether excessive steps are safely clamped.
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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized with Args/Returns sections. The controller line is not schema-backed and adds minor noise, but otherwise the content is compact and easy to scan.
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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core invocation and return information. It is not fully complete because it omits edge-case behavior such as empty history or excessive undo steps, and it does not clarify how this tool relates to the sibling undo/redo commands.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate; it adds 'Number of undo steps' and the default, but this mostly restates the schema's title and default value. It also mentions a 'controller' parameter that is absent from the input schema, which could mislead an agent about how to invoke the tool.
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 action and target with 'Undo one or more operations', making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling tools rhino_undo, rhino_redo, and rhino_cmd_redo, stopping short of a perfect score.
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 this tool versus rhino_undo, rhino_cmd_redo, or other related commands. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.