Retrieve file version history from the vault, listing versions in reverse chronological order with IDs, dates, and operations. Use the ID to restore a previous version.
Versiones de un archivo del vault, la más nueva primero (id, fecha, operación). El id sirve para restore_file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the ordering (newest first) and the fields, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether this tool mutates anything (it's likely read-only), what happens if the path doesn't exist, or details about pagination/limits. These gaps are not severe for a list operation.
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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and includes the key detail about the id being for restore_file, which is crucial for routing.
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?
There is an output schema, so return details are covered. The tool is simple with one param, and the description covers the basics. However, given the siblings include restore_file, it would help to mention that this is a read-only overview before restore. Also, path syntax is not specified, which could cause incorrect calls.
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 only parameter, path, is self-explanatory, but schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description must add meaning. The description implies the path points to a vault file, but doesn't clarify path format (e.g., relative to vault root). Since coverage is 0%, a baseline 1 might be argued, but the description's mention of 'archivo del vault' gives some context, so a 3 is fair.
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 the tool lists versions of a vault file, newest first, with fields id, date, and operation. It distinguishes from siblings like read_file and restore_file by focusing on history. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for comparison, making differentiation slightly implicit.
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 implies usage for viewing file versions, and mentions that the id is used for restore_file, which hints at when to use it (before restoring). But it doesn't provide explicit exclusions or alternatives; an agent might need to infer when to use this vs. read_file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.