mcp-server

colony_get_project_file_version

Read-onlyIdempotent

One version of a file, with its content. NOT_FOUND for a number the file never reached or no longer keeps. For those who may edit the project's files only, as colony_list_project_file_versions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "number": "<number>"
    },
    "name": "colony_get_project_file_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	The project's slug, as in /projects/<slug>.
`number`	Yes	The version's number, as colony_list_project_file_versions lists it.
`filename`	Yes	The file's name within the project, e.g. index.html or app.js.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, yet the description adds real value: it discloses that content is returned inline, that NOT_FOUND occurs for version numbers never reached or since pruned, and that the caller must have edit rights on project files. That error and authorization context is not derivable from 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

Short and front-loaded with the purpose, but the final sentence is mangled ('For those who may edit the project's files only, as ``colony_list_project_file_versions``'), forcing the agent to reverse-engineer the intended clause. Brevity is achieved at the cost of intelligibility.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a read-only annotation set, full schema coverage, and an output schema in place, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: error semantics and the edit-permission gate. Only the relationship to the current-file tool and any size/content limits are left unstated.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning to the `number` parameter by implying per-file sequential versioning and retention pruning ('a number the file never reached or no longer keeps'). It adds nothing about slug/filename formatting, so it is not a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and scope: 'One version of a file, with its ``content``' — clearly a single-version fetch that returns content, distinguishable from colony_get_project_file (current file) and colony_list_project_file_versions. No explicit verb, and the phrasing is terse, but an agent can tell what it returns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The closing sentence hints at a permission precondition ('For those who may edit the project's files only') and points at colony_list_project_file_versions, but it is grammatically broken and never states when to pick this over the sibling list/current-file tools. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

All mcp-server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.