Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Goxel-MCP

Goxel-MCP

by yberudev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Undo / redo

goxel_undo

Revert or reapply recent voxel edits with configurable undo/redo and step count; live mode uses Goxel’s own history.

Instructions

Undo (or redo) the last operations. In live mode Goxel's own history is used.

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": "goxel_undo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
redoNo
stepsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that in live mode Goxel's own history is used, which is a real behavioral difference, but says nothing about what happens when history is empty, the 1-30 step cap, or whether undo 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action before the mode caveat. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than tight.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves both parameters and the failure/limit behavior undocumented. An agent cannot reliably pass `steps` or know the cap from this text.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both parameters need explanation. The text only hints at redo ('or redo') without naming the parameter or indicating its default, and never mentions `steps` or its maximum of 30.

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?

States a specific verb (undo/redo) and resource (last operations), clearly distinguishing it from edit siblings like goxel_add_voxels or goxel_transform. It doesn't explicitly name itself as the rollback path for those siblings, but the intent is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The parenthetical '(or redo)' and the note about live mode imply when each direction applies, but the description never says how to choose redo (the `redo` parameter) or any alternative recovery path. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools