Mnemograph

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rewind

Restore your knowledge graph to a previous state by reverting git commits. Enables fast undo with a complete audit trail preserved in git.

Instructions

Rewind graph to a previous state using git. Fast undo, audit trail in git only. For audit-preserving restore, use restore_state_at() instead.

Tool call template

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": "rewind"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`steps`	No	Go back N commits that touched mnemograph.db
`to_commit`	No	Or specify exact commit hash

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Jul 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided; description adds that it's a 'fast undo' using git, implying destructive behavior, but does not detail side effects or reversibility beyond 'audit trail in git only'. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance and alternative. Highly concise.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema and simple parameters, description adequately covers purpose, usage, and alternative. Could mention return value or confirmation, but overall complete for a rewind action.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions for 'steps' and 'to_commit'. Description adds no further semantics beyond schema, so baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states 'Rewind graph to a previous state using git', specifying verb (rewind) and resource (graph). Distinguishes from sibling tool restore_state_at, making purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use ('Fast undo') and when not to use ('For audit-preserving restore, use restore_state_at() instead'), providing clear alternatives.

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