List available backups for your cPanel account. Find backup files to restore data or manage storage.
List available backups on the account
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": "list_backups"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a non-destructive read operation, but no additional traits are disclosed (e.g., output format, sorting, or whether all backup types are included). The description does not contradict annotations since none exist.
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, six-word sentence: 'List available backups on the account.' Every word contributes meaning, and the verb+object are front-loaded. There is no wasted or redundant content.
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, zero-parameter list operation, the description adequately conveys the core function. However, with no output schema, a hint about the format or scope of returned backups would improve completeness. Still, it is nearly complete given the low complexity.
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 tool has zero parameters, making the schema trivially complete (100% coverage). The description correctly focuses on the operation rather than parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 clearly states 'List available backups on the account' – a specific verb ('list') and resource ('backups') with account scope. It distinguishes from sibling backup creation/restore tools, though it doesn't specify which backup types (full, database, homedir, email) are included.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools (e.g., create_full_backup, restore_database_backup). The agent must infer usage solely from the tool's purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.