Retrieve your recent Snaphost deployments to review deploy history and track project release status.
List recent Snaphost deploys for the authenticated user.
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": "snaphost_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'for the authenticated user' (auth scope) which is useful, but says nothing about whether this is read-only, what 'recent' means in time terms, how default pagination behaves, or what data is returned. Reads as a safe list operation but leaves behavioral details undisclosed.
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?
Single sentence, zero wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource clearly. Concise without being under-specified to the point of tautology.
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 list-style tool with one self-documenting parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should disclose more about what the response contains (deploy IDs, timestamps, statuses?) and how 'recent' is bounded. A listing tool with sibling status/logs tools needs more context to avoid confusion.
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?
There is one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage. However, the parameter is self-explanatory from its schema (integer, default 20, min 1, max 100) and name. The description adds no extra meaning about the limit parameter, which is acceptable given the schema already fully constrains it.
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 'List recent Snaphost deploys for the authenticated user' with a specific verb (list), resource (Snaphost deploys), and scope (recent, authenticated user). It's clear but doesn't distinguish from siblings like snaphost_status or snaphost_logs, which could overlap in purpose.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this vs alternatives. The sibling tools (snaphost_deploy, snaphost_logs, snaphost_delete, snaphost_status) have potentially overlapping functionality but the description provides no exclusions or differentiation cues for when listing deploys is preferred over checking status or logs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.