Reconstruct

List scenarios

list_scenarios

Read-onlyIdempotent

List recorded interactive scenarios for one captured product version.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`product`	Yes	Product key, for example finance-ozon-ru
`version`	Yes	Exact capture version returned by list_versions. Pin the same version across related calls; do not use latest as an alias.
`environment`	No	Environment ID from the selected backend platform type in list_platforms.options.platforms[].environments[].id (backend implementation). Omit only when the version has one captured environment. Use captured pairs from list_platforms/list_versions for actual availability.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Result entries

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / product / description

Added value: +"Product key, for example finance-ozon-ru"

addedInput schema / properties / version / description

Added value: +"Exact capture version returned by list_versions. Pin the same version across related calls; do not use latest as an alias."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Structured result. Existing text or image content remains available in content.",
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "description": "Result entries",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "description": "Stored scenario summary",
+        "properties": {
+          "scenario": {
+            "description": "scenario",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "source": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "description": "source",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ]
+          },
+          "startedAt": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "description": "startedAt",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ]
+          },
+          "steps": {
+            "description": "Count or zero-based index",
+            "type": "integer"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "scenario",
+          "startedAt",
+          "source",
+          "steps"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description only adds that scenarios are 'recorded' and tied to a captured version; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how many scenarios return, and an output schema exists to cover the return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the guidance gaps elsewhere.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema covering return values and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to carry usage routing and it largely doesn't. An agent can call it, but distinguishing it from list_replays/list_stages/get_scenario_manifest is left to the caller.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so product, version and environment are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format or validation detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline here.

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 verb (list) plus resource (recorded interactive scenarios) and scopes it to 'one captured product version'. It is clearly distinguishable from get_scenario_manifest/get_scenario_step siblings, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives among the many list_* and get_scenario_* siblings. The only routing hints (pin the same version, don't use 'latest') live in the input schema, not the description.

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

All Reconstruct tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?