Extend MCP

List splitter versions

list_splitter_versions

Read-onlyIdempotent

List a splitter's published (immutable) versions (split group). Fetch one version's config with get_splitter. Follow any llmContext guidance included in results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Splitter ID (spl_...).
`limit`	No	Page size (default 25).
`sortDir`	No	Default desc.
`environment`	Yes	"TEST" = the Test (development) environment, "PRODUCTION" = live. Must match a granted target from get_me (an API key pins one environment).
`workspaceId`	Yes	Target workspace (ws_...). Must be a granted workspace — get_me lists the accepted values.
`nextPageToken`	No	Opaque cursor from the previous page.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`hasMore`	Yes
`llmContext`	No
`nextPageToken`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: versions are published and immutable, and results may include llmContext guidance that should be followed. This is meaningful behavioral information not present in the 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core operation, the relevant sibling tool for one version's config, and an actionable instruction to follow llmContext guidance. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the versioning concept, points to the next step for fetching config, and alerts the agent to llmContext guidance. Pagination and authorization are already covered in the schema descriptions.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all six parameters, including environment constraints, workspace grants, pagination token, and sorting. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a splitter's published (immutable) versions'), clearly distinguishing this from related siblings like list_splitters and get_splitter. It also explicitly names get_splitter as the tool for fetching one version's config, reinforcing the boundary.

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 gives clear context: listing published versions is this tool's job, and fetching a single version's config is get_splitter's job. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus list_splitters, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can route correctly.

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

All Extend MCP 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource+action combination, and the descriptions actively disambiguate potential overlaps (e.g., extract_data vs parse_document, detect_form_fields vs edit_pdf, get_file vs get_file_upload). The consistent verb_noun prefix pattern makes the semantic boundary of every tool immediately recognizable.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant verb_noun pattern is highly consistent across all nine domains (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, delete_*, run_*, get_*_run, get_*_batch, publish_*_version). Minor deviations exist: deploy_workflow_version vs publish_*_version for the same freeze-a-draft concept, and get_form_detection_run doesn't mirror its detect_form_fields counterpart.

Tool Count2/5

86 tools is a very heavy agent-facing surface, well past the 25+ threshold. The count is inflated by the near-identical 13-tool lifecycle repeated across extract, classify, and split (each with list/get/create/update/publish/runs/batches/versions), and while each tool has a distinct purpose, the sheer volume makes selection harder.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycles are thoroughly covered: create → update → publish → run (single and batch) → poll → cancel → delete-run → list runs/versions. Notable gaps include no delete tool for extractors, classifiers, splitters, workflows, or evaluation sets, and edit/form-detection runs have no list endpoint (documented workaround: keep run IDs). These are hygenic gaps that don't block primary workflows.

Resources

Need Help?