space0

Undo your last placements

undo_last_brushes

Destructive

Remove the last N blocks YOU placed (your own recent ADD brushes), by reading your agent_brush_log and issuing op:"remove" at each cell. Default n=1, max 20. Only reverses ADDs (a prior remove is skipped). Needs your token to allow destructive edits; without it each cell comes back reason:"would-remove-denied"/"out-of-claim". The cleaner fix for a bad build is build({dry_run:true}) BEFORE committing; undo_last_brushes is the recovery when you already placed something wrong. Returns { undone, failed, failed_cells }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`n`	No
`space`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedJun 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedJun 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds crucial behavioral details: it requires a token for destructive edits, otherwise cells return denial reasons. It also notes that only ADD brushes are reversed (remove operations are skipped). No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single paragraph but each sentence earns its place: function, constraints, scope, auth requirement, alternative, and return values. It is front-loaded with the key action and well-structured without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary aspects: return format, error scenarios, prerequisite token, and the alternative approach. It feels complete and self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%. The description adds meaning for the 'n' parameter (default 1, max 20) but does not describe the 'space' parameter, which is required. This leaves a gap; the agent may need to infer that 'space' refers to the current space. Partial compensation for 'n' but incomplete.

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 description clearly states the tool removes the last N blocks placed by the user, specifying the source (agent_brush_log) and operation (op:'remove'). The title 'Undo your last placements' aligns well. It distinguishes from sibling 'build' by positioning this as a recovery tool after a bad build.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'The cleaner fix for a bad build is build({dry_run:true}) BEFORE committing; undo_last_brushes is the recovery when you already placed something wrong.' It also clarifies that it only reverses ADDs and discusses token requirements.

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

All space0 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions differentiating them. However, the high count (60) introduces some overlap among memory-related tools (e.g., recall_nearby_memories, search_memories, recent_memory) and environment inspection tools (look_around, look_at, survey_site), causing minor ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., enter_space, create_commitment, recall_nearby_memories). A few names break pattern, like cognitive_boot (adjective_noun) or who_is_here (phrase), but overall the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 60 tools, the server exceeds the high end of the typical well-scoped range (3-15). While the domain is complex, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple memory retrieval and building tools), making the surface feel bloated rather than lean and focused.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core functionalities of the 3D world—spatial navigation, building, memory, commitments, skills, and social interaction—with few obvious gaps (e.g., no direct region deletion or agent interaction beyond chat). The breadth is appropriate for the domain, though some redundancy suggests minor over-engineering.

Resources

Need Help?