List all safe checkpoint tags for a solution, including tag name, date, counter, and commit SHA, to review available rollback points before reverting.
List all available checkpoints (safe-* tags) for a solution. Shows tag name, date, counter, and commit SHA. Use before rollback to see available safe points.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| solution_id | Yes | The solution ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.52Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state 'does not modify' or disclose any other behavioral traits. It does add useful context by specifying the safe-* tag pattern and output fields, but stops short of full transparency.
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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence provides value. It is concise without sacrificing needed details.
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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the exact items listed (safe-* tags with fields), and when to use it. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter (`solution_id` with type and description). The tool description does not add any additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available checkpoints') for a solution, and clarifies they are 'safe-* tags'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rollback or status tools, and even mentions the key output fields.
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?
Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use before rollback to see available safe points.' This provides clear context for invocation. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it doesn't earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.