List recent checkpoints from file-changing tool calls, showing the files each one touched. Use it to review or roll back recent edits in a coding session.
List recent checkpoints (one per file-changing tool call) with the files each one touched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the semantics of what a checkpoint represents (one per file-changing tool call) and that it reports touched files, but stays silent on ordering, retention window, or pagination behavior for older checkpoints.
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 tightly written sentence with no filler; the resource is front-loaded and the parenthetical definition earns its place by clarifying a project-specific term.
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?
With no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description conveys enough to call it correctly and previews the return shape (checkpoints with their touched files). It falls just short on the meaning of the limit parameter and return ordering.
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?
The single 'limit' parameter has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description only gestures at it via the word 'recent'. It does not state whether limit counts checkpoints or files, or what happens when there are fewer than the limit.
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 (checkpoints), and even defines what a checkpoint is — one per file-changing tool call — plus the payload (files touched). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling checkpoint_rewind, which an agent might confuse for the read side of this feature.
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: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before calling checkpoint_rewind, but the description never says so and offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative is named despite checkpoint_rewind being an obvious adjacent tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.