Undo a previous merge or supersede action; omit an operation ID to view the log of reversible operations and choose which to reverse.
Reverse a prior merge/supersede operation (the 'git reflog for your agent's memory'). With no operation_id, lists the reversible operation log so you can pick one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | No | ID of the merge/supersede operation to reverse. Omit to list recent operations (the reflog). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.6.0v2.3.0v2.1.27Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the reversible-log behavior and the optional operation_id dual mode, but does not detail consequences of reversing, error cases, or whether the reverse itself is reversible.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the main purpose is front-loaded, and the optional-mode behavior is introduced efficiently. The 'git reflog' analogy adds useful context without bloating the description.
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 single optional parameter and no nested objects, the description covers both invocation modes and the intended list-then-pick workflow. It does not define the return shape, but that is acceptable given the low complexity and the log-listing semantics.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates operation_id semantics and adds the 'pick one from the reflog' workflow, but provides no format or syntax details beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb 'Reverse' and resource 'prior merge/supersede operation,' and also describes the no-operation-id listing mode. The reflog metaphor and operation-type wording distinguish it from generic restore or consolidate siblings.
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?
Clearly conveys when to use it: reverse a prior merge/supersede operation, and when no operation_id is supplied, list the log so the agent can choose one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.