List frozen review mix versions for a podcast project to show which review mix is active and help producers compare or approve mixes.
List frozen review mix versions (includes active flag).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'frozen' suggests immutability, while the parenthetical discloses that output includes an active flag. However, it omits permission requirements, sorting, pagination, or whether results are scoped to a project.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the operation, resource, and one notable output detail.
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?
Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained in the description, the definition is incomplete for invocation. It does not explain the optional project_path parameter, lacks usage guidance, and provides no annotations to cover behavioral constraints.
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 schema has one optional parameter, project_path, with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never mentions it. The description adds no meaning about what project_path does or how it affects the result, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
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 'List' and a specific resource 'frozen review mix versions', with the parenthetical clarifying that the active flag is included. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like publish_review_version_tool or set_active_review_version_tool.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_active_review_version_tool or publish_review_version_tool. The purpose implies read-only retrieval, but no usage context or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.