Retrieve backups for a specific slicing preset, sorted newest first, to quickly find and restore previous versions after parameter changes.
List backups of a preset taken by set_profile_parameter / restore_backup, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| profile_type | No | process |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the 'newest first' ordering guarantee and the fact that only backups created by set_profile_parameter/restore_backup appear — real behavioral context beyond structured fields. It stops short of describing scoping or volume limits.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the scoping and ordering facts appended. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the undocumented profile_type parameter and the underspecified 'name', which matter for calling the tool correctly in a family of profile tools.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only hints that 'name' is a preset name ('backups of a preset'). The profile_type enum (process/filament/machine, default process) is never mentioned, leaving an agent to guess whether it changes which backups are returned.
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 backups of a preset') plus provenance (created by set_profile_parameter / restore_backup) and ordering ('newest first'), which distinguishes it from restore_backup and from the get_/list_profiles read tools. It does not explicitly frame itself against siblings, but the scope is unambiguous.
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?
By naming set_profile_parameter and restore_backup as the producers, it implies the natural use case (find a backup before restoring), but it never states when to call this versus restore_backup or list_profiles, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.