listIcpVersionsLists an ICP's published versions, newest first.
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": {
"params": "<params>"
},
"name": "listIcpVersions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two behavioral facts not in the annotations: only published versions are returned (drafts excluded) and results are ordered newest first.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the ordering qualifier is appended without waste. Nothing redundant is present.
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?
With no output schema, the description does not say what a 'version' contains or whether all versions are returned in one call versus paginated. Given the annotations cover safety and the schema is trivial, it is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about result shape.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required icpId, so the description carries some burden. It ties the parameter to an ICP implicitly ('an ICP's'), but adds no detail on format, whether the ICP must be published to exist, or what happens for an unknown id.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists an ICP's published versions'), which clearly separates it from getIcp (single record) and the draft-oriented siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but 'published' implicitly contrasts with the draft tools.
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?
Usage is implied: reach for this when you need version history for a known ICP. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as getIcp or listIcps for other ICP data.
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.