List saved script versions and variants for a session, newest first, with author, note and preview so you can review changes.
List saved versions of the script and variants, newest first, with author, note and a preview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | Yes | Session as 'Project/folder', an absolute path, or its id (from get_session). An old path still works after a rename or move. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing sort order ('newest first') and the returned content ('author, note and a preview'), which matters since no output schema exists.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then ordering and returned fields. No filler; every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter tool, the description covers scope, ordering, and return fields, and annotations cover safety. It doesn't mention pagination or result limits, which is the only notable gap for a history listing.
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%, so the single session parameter is fully documented in the schema itself (formats, id, rename tolerance). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is correct.
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 (List) and resource (saved versions of the script and variants), plus ordering and returned fields. It reads clearly as a history/listing operation distinct from get_script_version (single) and restore_script_version (mutation), though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 'newest first' ordering implies the typical use case (scoping recent versions, likely before a restore), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or mention of the sibling alternatives get_script_version/restore_script_version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.