getV01ServersServerNameVersionsList all versions of an MCP server - Returns all available versions for a specific MCP server, ordered by publication date (newest first)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serverName | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the result is ordered by publication date (newest first) and that it returns 'all available versions'. This provides additional expectation-setting without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using two short phrases separated by a dash, with the key action front-loaded. Every word adds value: it names the resource, specifies the scope ('all versions', 'specific MCP server'), and adds the ordering detail. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool returns. Minor gaps like pagination or response format are not mentioned, but for a simple listing tool with good annotations, this is acceptable. It is not overburdened and covers the essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has only one parameter (serverName) with 0% description coverage. The description says 'for a specific MCP server', which gives vague meaning but does not explain what serverName is, how to obtain it, or any format requirements. With no schema description, the description should compensate but minimally does, leaving the parameter semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all versions of an MCP server' and elaborates with 'Returns all available versions for a specific MCP server, ordered by publication date (newest first)'. The verb 'List' and the resource 'versions of an MCP server' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like getV01ServersServerNameVersionsVersion (likely a single version) by emphasizing 'all versions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need all versions of a server. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. There is no reference to sibling tools or exclusions, so usage guidelines are only implied, not stated directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource level: all servers, versions of a specific server, and a specific version. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names follow the same pattern of getV01Servers + path segments, making the hierarchy clear and predictable. The naming is consistent and accurately reflects the API endpoints.
Three tools is a well-scoped set for a read-only registry server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers the typical registry lookup workflow: list servers, list versions, and fetch a specific version (including 'latest'). A minor gap is the lack of a direct way to list all servers with their latest versions in a single call, requiring multiple requests.