proofcut

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

undo

Destructive

Revert recent project mutations—cuts, cues, framing, music bed, caption styles, imports—by rolling back one or more steps. Preview first with plan, because there is no redo.

Instructions

Roll the project back steps mutations (default one) — the timeline, the manifest, or both.

Mutating tools snapshot first (migrate_project keeps its own backup instead), so this undoes cuts, cues, framing, the music bed, caption style and the rest alike. The reply says what came back: timeline_restored, manifest_restored, and timeline_removed when undoing a seed_timeline leaves no timeline at all. Undoing an import un-registers the clip but leaves its media on disk; transcripts are not snapshotted and stay. There is no redo, so an out-of-range steps is refused before anything is restored, and plan shows what it would undo — changes' answer for the same steps — first. status gives undo_depth.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	The project directory to act on. Omit it — the usual case — when this server is bound to a project (started as `proofcut -C DIR mcp`, or inside a project; `ping` says which): it then resolves to that one bound project, a relative path resolves against it, and a path outside it is refused by name. Unbound, `path` is the whole address and omitting it refuses rather than guessing.
`plan`	No	Roll nothing back; return `changes`' account of what `steps` would undo. There is no redo, so read it before a `steps` above 1.
`steps`	No	How many mutations to roll back, from 1 (the last one) up to the undo depth; the same count `changes` takes. All or nothing: a number past the depth is refused, not walked as far as it goes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.37.0Sep 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / plan

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Roll nothing back; return `changes`' account of what `steps` would undo. There is no redo, so read it before a `steps` above 1.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / steps

Added value: +{
+  "default": 1,
+  "description": "How many mutations to roll back, from 1 (the last one) up to the undo depth; the same count `changes` takes. All or nothing: a number past the depth is refused, not walked as far as it goes.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.25.0Sep 16, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / path / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / path / description

Added value: +"The project directory to act on. Omit it — the usual case — when this server is bound to a project (started as `proofcut -C DIR mcp`, or inside a project; `ping` says which): it then resolves to that one bound project, a relative path resolves against it, and a path outside it is refused by name. Unbound, `path` is the whole address and omitting it refuses rather than guessing."

removedInput schema / properties / path / title
```
Removed value: -"Path"
```

addedInput schema / properties / path / type

Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]

removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"undoArguments"
```

First observedv0.24.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already mark this as destructive, the description supplies crucial behavioral detail: mutations snapshot first, imports unregister clips but leave media on disk, transcripts are not snapshotted, out-of-range `steps` are refused before any restoration, and there is no redo. It also explains reply fields like `timeline_restored`, `manifest_restored`, and `timeline_removed`, giving the agent a clear model of side effects.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: core operation is front-loaded, then scope, side effects, return fields, and safety warnings are organized in logical paragraphs. Code-formatted identifiers and bolded terms keep it scannable despite its length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive mutation tool with no required parameters, the description covers what is affected, what is preserved, what the response reports, how to preview safely, and how to check undo depth. With annotations and an output schema also present, nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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%, and each parameter's schema entry is already detailed (e.g., `steps` documents the depth, all-or-nothing behavior, and refusal past depth). The description reinforces these semantics and adds cross-references to `changes` and `status`, but it does not introduce substantial new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The first sentence specifies a precise verb ('roll the project back') with a parameterized resource ('`steps` mutations') and clearly scopes what is affected: 'the timeline, the manifest, or both.' It also names concrete examples of what is undone (cuts, cues, framing, music bed, caption style), making the operation unambiguous and distinct from read-only or preview siblings like `changes` and `plan`.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use `plan` before undoing, warns that 'There is no redo,' and instructs the agent to preview with `plan` for `steps` above 1. It also tells the user where to find undo depth via `status`, and clarifies that `migrate_project` is handled differently because it keeps its own backup.

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

Deploy Server