proofcut

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

undo

Destructive

Roll back the latest project change by restoring the timeline and manifest from the last snapshot. Call repeatedly to step back further, but check the rollback depth first because redo is unavailable.

Instructions

Roll the project back one mutation — 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; call it again to go back further. 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. There is no redo, so read undo_depth first when stepping back more than once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the `destructiveHint: true` annotation, the description discloses important side effects: undo snapshots are taken first, imports unregister clips but leave media on disk, there is no redo, and return flags like `timeline_restored` and `timeline_removed` are explained. This is rich behavioral context.

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: scope, examples, return values, edge cases, and redo limitation. The first sentence front-loads the core behavior, and the rest expands without fluff.

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?

The description covers behavior, side effects, return values, and the main path semantics from the schema. It loses a point because it instructs the agent to read `undo_depth` first, but no `undo_depth` tool appears in the provided sibling list, making that guidance unactionable.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for `path`, including binding behavior and refusal rules. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Roll the project back one mutation') and the resources affected ('the timeline, the manifest, or both'), with concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool `restore`, leaving the distinction to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: after a mutation, repeatedly to go further back, and with the caution to read `undo_depth` first for multi-step undos. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server