Skip to main content
Glama

get-item-versions

Retrieve all document versions in Autodesk Construction Cloud projects to track changes and access historical data.

Instructions

List all versions of a document in Autodesk Construction Cloud

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYes
itemIdYes

Implementation Reference

  • The asynchronous callback function that implements the core logic of the 'get-item-versions' tool. It retrieves an access token, uses the DataManagementClient to fetch item versions from Autodesk Platform Services, and formats the response as MCP content.
    callback: async ({ projectId, itemId }) => {
        // TODO: add pagination support
        const accessToken = await getAccessToken(["data:read"]);
        const dataManagementClient = new DataManagementClient();
        const versions = await dataManagementClient.getItemVersions(projectId, itemId, { accessToken });
        if (!versions.data) {
            throw new Error("No versions found");
        }
        return {
            content: versions.data.map((version) => ({ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(version) }))
        };
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the tool: projectId (string, nonempty) and itemId (string, nonempty).
    const schema = {
        projectId: z.string().nonempty(),
        itemId: z.string().nonempty()
    };
  • src/tools/index.ts:4-4 (registration)
    Re-export of the getItemVersions tool from its module, aggregating it into the tools index for bulk import and registration.
    export { getItemVersions } from "./get-item-versions.js";
  • src/server.ts:12-14 (registration)
    Generic registration loop that registers all tools (including get-item-versions) from the tools index into the MCP server using server.tool().
    for (const tool of Object.values(tools)) {
        server.tool(tool.title, tool.description, tool.schema, tool.callback);
    }
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'versions' includes (e.g., metadata, timestamps). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (listing versions of a document), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'versions' entail, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured support, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but it implies the need for a document (via 'itemId') and context (via 'Autodesk Construction Cloud', loosely hinting at 'projectId'). With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, this adds minimal value beyond what the schema names suggest. The baseline is 3 since the schema provides parameter names and types, but the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List all versions') and resource ('of a document in Autodesk Construction Cloud'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (which focus on accounts, folders, issues, etc.), but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project and item), exclusions, or related tools for different operations. It's a standalone statement with no contextual framing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/petrbroz/aps-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server