Retrieve historical policy bundle revisions from Langflow 1.12.x (superuser-only) to audit policy changes, with optional limit and before-revision filters.
List historical policy bundle revisions (superuser-only Langflow 1.12.x API).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of revisions, 1-200 | |
| before_revision | No | Return revisions before this number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.12.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral facts: an authorization requirement (superuser-only) and an API version constraint (Langflow 1.12.x). It says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering of revisions, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving notable gaps for an unannotated tool.
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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the auth/version qualifier in parentheses. No filler and nothing redundant.
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 with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials plus the non-obvious superuser constraint. It could say a bit more about pagination/ordering semantics, but nothing essential is missing to invoke it correctly.
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 (limit, before_revision) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond that, which is the expected 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?
States a specific verb and resource (list historical policy bundle revisions), which clearly differentiates it from the current-state sibling get_policy_bundle. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it might be confused with (rollback_policy_bundle, get_policy_bundle), so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: the 'historical revisions' framing suggests auditing/version inspection, and the parenthetical establishes a prerequisite (superuser-only, Langflow 1.12.x). However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_policy_bundle or rollback_policy_bundle, and no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.