versionsList available versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| versions | Yes | List of available version strings | |
| module_path | Yes | The module path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "module_path": "github.com/sirupsen/logrus"
+ },
+ {
+ "module_path": "github.com/google/uuid"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "List of available versions for a Go module",
+ "properties": {
+ "module_path": {
+ "description": "The module path",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "versions": {
+ "description": "List of available version strings",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "module_path",
+ "versions"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, constraints). It is consistent but does not surpass annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise but lacks structure. While it avoids verbosity, it could be improved by adding a brief explanation of the parameter or result format.
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?
Given a single required parameter and an existing output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to describe what 'available versions' means, how the parameter is used, or any edge cases.
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?
The only parameter 'module_path' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and is not explained in the tool description. The agent receives no semantic guidance beyond the parameter name.
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 'List available versions' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (versions). It is specific enough, though it does not differentiate from the sibling 'version_info' 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., version_info). The description lacks context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.
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.