Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Copilot Desktop MCP

Copilot Desktop MCP

by avianhermana
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List Backups

list_backups
Read-only

Lists local codebase backups in reverse chronological order so you can find the right restore point.

Instructions

List available local codebase backups in reverse chronological order.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_backups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's real contribution is the reverse-chronological ordering, which is genuinely useful beyond the annotation. It does not explain the meaning of "local" (which directory or machine hosts the backups) or whether the list is bounded or complete.

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?

A single sentence with the resource stated first and the ordering qualifier appended where it belongs; there is no filler, hedging, or redundant restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and a safety annotation already covering behavior, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining minor gap is scope: an agent cannot tell from the text what counts as a "local codebase backup" or whether multiple projects are included.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids restating an empty schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description pairs a specific verb ("List") with a specific resource ("local codebase backups") and adds an ordering guarantee, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of distinguishing this from plausible siblings such as list_directory or backup_self, leaving the agent to infer that those are not equivalent.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before a restore or inspection action, but the description never says so, never states prerequisites, and never names an alternative. With no parameters and no branching behavior, the gap is small but real.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools