Retrieve immutable revisions, hashes, and the active revision for a specified Module ID to track changes and identify the current version.
Lists immutable Module revisions, hashes, and the active revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module_id | Yes | Reverse-domain Module id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that revisions are 'immutable' and that the active revision is included, which is real behavioral context. However, it omits read-only confirmation, return structure, ordering, or pagination details.
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?
A single efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and names the concrete payload (revisions, hashes, active revision). Zero waste.
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 read-only list tool with one required, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned. But with no annotations it leaves open whether the call is safe/read-only and how many revisions or in what order they appear.
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 coverage is 100% with module_id documented as 'Reverse-domain Module id'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's baseline.
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?
States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (Module revisions) plus the return content (hashes, active revision). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_rewrite_script_revisions or from inspect_module, but the resource is clear.
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 on when to use this versus inspect_module or other module tools. An agent must infer usage from the name alone; no conditions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.