Retrieve all published versions of a Maven artifact from the remote repository, including those not installed locally, by specifying group and artifact IDs.
List all versions of an artifact published on the remote repository, including versions that are not installed locally
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum versions to return | |
| group_id | Yes | Maven group ID | |
| artifact_id | Yes | Maven artifact ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses the remote scope and the inclusion of non-local versions. However, it claims to list 'all' versions while the schema includes a 'limit' parameter, creating a slight ambiguity about whether results are truly complete or capped.
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 sentence that is immediately informative. The main action and key qualifier are front-loaded, with no filler or redundant detail. Every word contributes to understanding.
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 list operation with fully documented parameters, this description is nearly complete. It conveys the remote-versus-local distinction, which is the main contextual nuance. The missing return-format details are less critical given the tool's straightforward name and behavior.
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 the schema already fully documents the three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema handles the explanation.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('versions of an artifact published on the remote repository'), and a key differentiator ('including versions that are not installed locally'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_version_info and list_artifacts.
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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need versions available on the remote repository, including those not installed locally. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.