Retrieve the version history of a QuickSight dashboard to track changes and manage revisions. Specify dashboard ID and optional limit.
List the version history of a QuickSight dashboard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of versions to return (default 10). | |
| dashboard_id | Yes | The QuickSight dashboard ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as result ordering, pagination behavior, or whether the current version is included in the list. For a history-listing tool, those traits matter to an agent's invocation.
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, efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. Every word earns its place and nothing is wasted.
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?
Given the low complexity, complete parameter documentation, and an output schema that covers return values, the description is nearly sufficient. The only minor gap is that it does not mention result ordering or pagination behavior, which the limit parameter and output schema likely handle.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('version history of a QuickSight dashboard'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like rollback_dashboard or publish_dashboard, but the scope is unambiguous for an agent scanning the tool list.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rollback_dashboard or list_dashboards. It implies the obvious use case of inspecting version history, but provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.