roadflow_list_versionsList shared-map version checkpoints (newest first). Relative indexes: -1 = newest. Requires a shared edit workspace (not view-only).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "roadflow_list_versions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It's a read-only operation (listing) with no side effects described. It mentions ordering ('newest first') and the relative index convention, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose what format the returned versions take or whether pagination/limits apply.
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?
Two sentences, both earning their place. The ordering note and the relative index explanation are genuinely useful, and the workspace requirement is critical context. No filler words. Could potentially add a bit more behavioral detail but is appropriately compact.
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?
Simple 0-param read tool, so completeness needs are modest. The description covers purpose, ordering, and prerequisites. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could hint at what fields appear in the returned list (version IDs, timestamps, commit messages?) to help the agent chain this with get_version. Minor gap.
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?
There are 0 parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description adds the important convention of relative indexes (-1 = newest), which is semantic context that helps the agent understand how version references work even without parameters here.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'List shared-map version checkpoints' with ordering specified ('newest first'). Distinguishes from sibling roadflow_get_version (which retrieves a specific version). The relative index convention (-1 = newest) is useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all version-related siblings.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: requires a shared edit workspace (not view-only). This is a clear usage condition/precondition. The sibling context helps differentiate it from get_version. The description gives actionable guidance on prerequisites.
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.