control_plane_backups_listLists available control plane backups with cursor-based pagination, so you can inspect backup inventory and page through results using limit or cursor.
List control plane backups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description text. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention pagination behaviour, ordering, default result count, or how the control-plane set is scoped, which are the behaviours an agent actually needs here. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 single sentence is short but only because it is under-specified, not because it is efficient. It carries no front-loaded useful information beyond the title, so brevity here costs rather than saves.
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 paginated list tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema and no annotation detail on returns, the description should explain what is listed, ordering, and paging. None of that is present, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it beyond guessing defaults.
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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters (limit with a 1-500 range and default 100, and cursor), and the description supplies no meaning for either. Pagination via cursor is entirely undocumented, so the agent gets no help on how to page or what limit governs.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
There is no usage guidance at all: no statement of when to call this instead of backups_list or backup_drills_list, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the choice purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.