List the account's game versions, newest first, with the ids to use for the version_id filter, the date each version started, and whether it has match or event data.
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": "list_versions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds useful behavior beyond them by stating the sort order (newest first) and exactly what each row contains. It does not describe volume, pagination, or whether the list is ever empty, which is the remaining gap.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the returned content. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.
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?
For a no-parameter read tool this is nearly complete: purpose, ordering, and returned fields are all stated, and annotations cover the safety profile. With no output schema, a brief note on pagination or result size would make it fully self-sufficient.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The mention of version_id is a pointer to other tools' filters, not a parameter of this one.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ("List the account's game versions") and immediately names the returned fields: version ids, start dates, and whether match or event data exists. No sibling tool covers game versions, so the agent can place it instantly.
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?
It gives clear usage context by explaining the ids are meant for the version_id filter used elsewhere, which tells the agent why to call it. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tools that consume version_id or stating any when-not-to-call condition.
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.