Encryptor MCP

versions

Read-only

Lists a file's earlier saved revisions, newest first, with IDs for restoring, so you can choose which one to put back without changing anything.

Instructions

List the earlier versions of one file that its changes kept, newest first, with the ids restore_version takes. Use it to pick which version to put back. Changes nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	A path inside the vault, from its top, for example 'Taxes/2025/receipts.md'.
`vault`	Yes	The vault's name, as listed by the vaults tool, for example 'Taxes'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.4Oct 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / path / description

Added value: +"A path inside the vault, from its top, for example 'Taxes/2025/receipts.md'."

addedInput schema / properties / vault / description

Added value: +"The vault's name, as listed by the vaults tool, for example 'Taxes'."

First observedv0.1.3Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior: results are newest first, ids are intended for restore_version, and the operation changes nothing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no waste. The key behavior is front-loaded: list earlier versions newest first, then the restore_version relationship, then the non-mutating note.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Complete for a read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage. It explains ordering, intended use, and the link to restore_version, leaving nothing critical for an agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both vault and path are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: list earlier versions of one file, newest first. It also names the downstream use of the returned ids with restore_version, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file or recent_changes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use it to pick which version to put back, and clarifies that it changes nothing, making the division of labor with restore_version clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server