list_flow_versionsRetrieve saved snapshots of a flow, newest first, to review or roll back to an earlier version. Use the flow ID and optional limit/offset to page through version history.
List saved versions of a flow, newest first. Versions are snapshots the flow can be rolled back to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the flow. | |
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's job is smaller. It usefully adds that versions are rollback snapshots and returns are ordered newest first, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result size limits, or when an empty list occurs.
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 short sentences, ordering stated up front, and the second sentence earns its place by defining what a version is. No boilerplate or redundancy.
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 list tool with one required parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient; defining "version" was the key missing piece and it is present. The remaining gap is that without an output schema the agent has no idea what fields a version record exposes (notably the version ID needed for restore).
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?
Schema coverage is only 33% — only `id` is documented; `limit` and `offset` carry just type/default/bounds with no meaning in either schema or description. The description adds no parameter guidance at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List saved versions of a flow") plus ordering ("newest first"), which is more precise than the title alone. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like create_flow_version or restore_flow_version, but the read/list semantics are unmistakable.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before restore_flow_version, but the description never says so or names any alternative. No prerequisites (e.g., flow must exist or be published) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.