kinsta_backups_listRetrieve all available backups for a Kinsta environment by providing its environment ID, helping you locate restore points or verify backup history.
List all backups for an environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the environment-scoping constraint and the fact that it lists 'all' backups, but it does not describe pagination, error behavior, or what constitutes a backup. With annotations present, the description meets the minimum but adds little beyond the obvious.
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, concise sentence that states the action and scope. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. This is an example of appropriate minimalism for a straightforward read operation.
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, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description conveys the essential behavior. It tells the agent what the tool does and the scope (environment). It does not detail the response format or any limits, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations, this is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 already provides a 100% description of the single parameter env_id as 'The environment ID'. The tool description's phrase 'for an environment' echoes that same meaning without adding new details about format, validation, or how to obtain the ID. Since schema coverage is full, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not substantially enhance parameter understanding.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('backups') scoped to an environment. It clearly distinguishes from sibling backup tools that create, restore, delete, or download backups. No ambiguity about what action this performs.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the related backup tools (e.g., kinsta_backups_downloadable). An agent must infer that this is the general list operation, but there is no explicit alternative or exclusion. For a simple read-only list this is a minor gap, but the lack of any usage context is noticeable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.