list_versionsLists a site's versions, newest first, 200 at a time: number, time, who published and which files changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | No | By this person (part of name or email) | |
| site | Yes | ||
| since | No | After this ISO date-time | |
| before | No | Older than this version number | |
| since_days | No | ||
| site_token | No | From an anonymous deploy (secret) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| versions | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / site_token / descriptionAdded value: +"From an anonymous deploy (secret)"Input schema / properties / since_days / descriptionRemoved value: -"The last N days"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "versions": {
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / site / descriptionRemoved value: -"Site name"Input schema / properties / site_token / descriptionRemoved value: -"From the first deploy (no account)"Input schema / properties / since_days / maximumRemoved value: -3650Input schema / properties / site / descriptionPrevious value: -"Site name, e.g. brave-otter-4821"New value: +"Site name"Input schema / properties / site_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"site_token from the first deploy (anonymous sites only)"New value: +"From the first deploy (no account)"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": {},
- "properties": {
- "agent_message": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "confirm_token": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "error": {
- "description": "On failure (isError): {code, message}"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety traits: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: newest-first ordering, a page size of 200, and which fields are returned. It stops short of explaining authentication or pagination continuation behavior.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It puts the core action first, then adds ordering, pagination, and return-field detail efficiently.
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?
This is a simple read-only listing tool with rich annotations and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It is nearly complete, though it omits how the optional filters and pagination are meant to be used.
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 67%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning for 'by', 'since', 'before', and 'site_token'. The description adds no filter semantics beyond the implicit site scope, and 'since_days' plus the required 'site' parameter remain undocumented in both places.
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 a site's versions,' and adds scope, ordering, and returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related sibling rollback tool.
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?
The description explains what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as rollback. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or workflows.
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.