kinsta_backups_next-downloadableCheck when the next downloadable backup can be created for a Kinsta environment to plan backup scheduling and avoid failed attempts.
Get when the next downloadable backup can be created 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, so the description need not repeat those. It adds a bit of context by specifying the return type (a time), but does not explain potential edge cases (e.g., if no downloadable backup is possible, or if the response format differs). No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.
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 read-only query with one parameter, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what the tool returns (the next downloadable backup time) and the scope (environment). Given the annotations cover safety and idempotency, and there is no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but that is minor.
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 100% coverage for the single parameter env_id, with a clear description. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional semantic value is provided.
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 clearly states the tool's function: getting the next downloadable backup time for an environment. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling backup tools (e.g., kinsta_backups_create-downloadable or kinsta_backups_list), though the name and phrasing make the distinction implicit.
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 implies that this tool is used to determine when a downloadable backup can be created, which gives some usage context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the many backup-related siblings, more explicit routing would be helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.