Skip to main content
Glama

List Agent Versions

agent_versions
Read-only

The versions ONE agent ran in a time window, on two dimensions that are kept apart and must not be read as synonyms: agent is the agent definition — prompt, tools, policy — as rius.main_agent.version stamps it, and service is the build that ran it, as service.version stamps it. A prompt edit ships without a deploy and a deploy without touching the agent, so the two move independently. Each row carries its traces, failed traces, failed rate and when it was first and last seen within the window.

This is the same read the Rius console's Agent page draws its Versions figure from, and every row is ROOT-scoped like the registry fields, so a row's numbers equal agent_traces_summary with filters=[{"field": "agent_version" | "service_version", "op": "eq", "values": [version]}]. Use it to learn which two values to hand compare_agent_versions, or to see when a version appeared. Rows are newest-seen first within a dimension and capped at 50 per dimension; the totals count past the cap.

agent: the exact agent name (required: versions are per agent). Read a name off list_agents or off root_agent on list_agent_traces rather than guessing one. workspace: optional workspace id, name, or org-name/workspace-name when the same name occurs in two of your orgs (defaults to your default; use list_workspaces to discover them). hours: lookback window in hours (default 24), used for whichever of start/end is not given. start: optional absolute RFC3339 lower bound (e.g. "2026-08-01T00:00:00Z"); overrides the hours-derived value when given. end: optional absolute RFC3339 upper bound; overrides the hours-derived value when given. instance: optional exact instance id, narrowing to one running copy of agent.

Example:

Which versions of planner ran this week?

{ "name": "agent_versions", "arguments": { "agent": "planner", "hours": 168 } }

When did planner's new prompt version first show up?

{ "name": "agent_versions", "arguments": { "agent": "planner", "hours": 720 } }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNo
agentYes
hoursNo
startNo
instanceNo
workspaceNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover read-only/no-open-world, but the description adds substantive behavior: rows are ROOT-scoped like registry fields, ordered newest-seen first per dimension, capped at 50 per dimension with totals counting past the cap, and row contents (traces, failed traces, failed rate, first/last seen). These are the operational traits an agent needs and none are 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the two-dimension warning, followed by equivalence, then parameters, then two focused examples — a strong structure. It is verbose in places (the repeated workspace parenthetical), but nearly every sentence adds load-bearing detail.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still previews row fields. Combined with full parameter documentation, usage routing, cap/ordering semantics, and named siblings, an agent has everything required to call it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning — and it does. Every one of the six parameters is documented with its default and semantics, including RFC3339 format for start/end with the 'overrides the hours-derived value' precedence rule, workspace name-vs-id-vs-org/workspace disambiguation, and instance as a narrowing filter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('The versions ONE agent ran in a time window') and then carefully disambiguates the two dimensions (agent definition vs. service build) that an agent could easily conflate. It names the sibling it feeds into (compare_agent_versions), so it is unmistakable against its neighbors.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it to learn which two values to hand compare_agent_versions, or to see when a version appeared.' It also gives the equivalent agent_traces_summary query with exact filter syntax, so an agent knows the overlap and when to pick one over the other.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources