List historical versions of a skill or file (from file_versions). Each entry includes version label, sha, created_at, and the actor that produced it.
List historical versions of a skill or file (from file_versions). Each entry includes version label, sha, created_at, and the actor that produced it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| file_id | No | ||
| skill_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the shape of each entry (version label, sha, created_at, actor) and the backing store (file_versions), which is real value. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether skill_id/file_id are mutually exclusive, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.
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 sentences, no filler: the purpose is front-loaded and the return contents follow immediately. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Listing the returned fields partly compensates for the absence of an output schema, and no annotations exist to be missed. However, with zero schema description coverage, the description should at least resolve the skill_id/file_id choice and mention the limit default; that gap leaves the agent guessing.
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% across three parameters. The phrase 'a skill or file' implicitly maps to skill_id/file_id and hints they are alternatives, but the limit parameter (default 50) and the interaction between the two IDs are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (historical versions of a skill or file), plus its underlying source (file_versions). An agent can distinguish it from mutation siblings like skill.test or skills.scaffold, though it never explicitly names a close sibling such as skill.compareVersions or skill.diff.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. It is left to inference that this is the inspection/history tool versus skill.compareVersions or skill.diff, which are the obvious alternatives for version-related work.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.