backupvolume_backup_list_by_volumeList backups by specifying the source volume name, giving you a clear view of available recovery points for that volume.
List backups for a backup volume, scoped by the source volume. Longhorn docs: https://longhorn.io/docs/1.12.1/snapshots-and-backups/backup-and-restore/
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the listing action and scoping, without confirming read-only status, return format, pagination, or potential side effects. The agent cannot infer the output structure or safety profile.
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?
The description is one sentence plus a documentation link. The action and scope are front-loaded with no redundant wording, making it appropriately concise.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It omits parameter disambiguation, return value details, and behavioral guarantees. The external docs link partly compensates, but the description alone is not self-sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.
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 0%, so the description must explain the lone 'name' parameter. 'Scoped by the source volume' hints at the parameter's role, but it remains ambiguous whether 'name' is the backup volume name or the source volume name. No format, examples, or constraints are given.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List backups for a backup volume') and adds a scoping constraint ('scoped by the source volume'), which helps distinguish it from generic backup listing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-sibling backupvolume_backup_list, and the phrase 'backup volume' vs 'source volume' leaves slight ambiguity.
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 is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives such as backupvolume_backup_list or backup_list. There are no exclusion criteria or decision rules; the docs link is a general reference, not a usage directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.