get_version_historyGet the deployment and version history (git commits) for a project. Shows all schema changes with commit SHA, timestamp, and message. USE CASES: Review what changed between deployments, find the last working version before issues started, get commit SHA for rollback_project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (UUID) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds meaningful context: it reveals the content (commit SHA, timestamp, message) and the practical purpose (rollback assistance). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. No fluff, no repetition.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one documented parameter and complete annotations, the description provides sufficient information about the response content and use cases. It also connects to the rollback_project sibling, which is a helpful contextual cue.
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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter (project_id) with a clear description. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but this is unnecessary given the schema's completeness. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the deployment and version history (git commits) for a project.' It also specifies the output (schema changes with commit SHA, timestamp, message). It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool get_graph_version_history, which likely serves graph projects.
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 provides explicit use cases: 'Review what changed between deployments, find the last working version before issues started, get commit SHA for rollback_project.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get_graph_version_history.
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.
Most tools are clearly differentiated by domain (project vs graph_project) and action (create, get, list, delete). The main ambiguity is get_project vs get_project_info, which both claim to return detailed project information. Otherwise tool boundaries are clear.
The server follows a strong verb_noun convention, with parallel naming for graph and non-graph tools (create_project/create_graph_project, deploy_staging/deploy_graph_staging). Minor deviations include bulk_create_graph_nodes and fulltext_search_graph, but patterns remain predictable.
48 tools is a heavy surface, even when accounting for the two parallel product domains (relational and graph). Many tools are near-duplicates across domains, and the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold that feels manageable. It would benefit from consolidation or sub-servers.
Both project types have full life-cycle coverage: create, schema management, deployment, rollback, and deletion, plus graph data operations including bulk, search, and traversal. Minor gaps exist, such as no update_graph_relationship and the redundant get_project/get_project_info pair, but agents can accomplish core workflows.