Lists environments within a specified Classic Release definition, providing read-only access to environment details. Retrieve environment information for a given release definition ID.
Read environments within a Classic Release definition, not YAML environments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | ||
| definitionId | Yes | ||
| organization | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the useful scoping detail that the operation targets Classic Release definitions rather than YAML environments, but it does not describe pagination, output shape, or auth requirements.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The 'not YAML environments' clause is meaningful disambiguation, not 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 list tool, the required definitionId and optional project/organization are reasonably inferable from the schema, and the description supplies the important Classic-vs-YAML distinction. The absence of any output format or return-value note is a minor gap, but it does not make invocation ambiguous.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the definition referenced is a Classic Release definition, which helps with the required definitionId parameter, but it provides no guidance on the project or organization parameters or how they affect the lookup.
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, 'Read,' and a specific resource, 'environments within a Classic Release definition.' The final clause explicitly excludes YAML environments, which helps distinguish this tool from related release-definition or YAML-scoped tools.
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 intended use case is clear: use this when you need environments from a Classic Release definition. It also provides a when-not by stating it is not for YAML environments, though it does not name alternative sibling tools or spell out routing conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.