list_project_snapshotsList verified project snapshots newest first, showing hashes, triggers, sizes, and change counts to help you track code history.
List verified backups newest first, including hashes, triggers, sizes, and change counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| success | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / formatRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Output format: \"detailed\" (default) or \"compact\" for Cline",
- "optional": true,
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "maximum": 500,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success",
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the sort order ('newest first'), and its remaining content (hashes, triggers, sizes, change counts) is return-value detail with no behavioral disclosure. Adequate but thin beyond the annotations.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the ordering constraint placed early. No filler and nothing redundant in phrasing.
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?
An output schema exists, so enumerating returned fields is largely redundant, while genuinely missing details (default/limit semantics, pagination, whether results span one project or all) go unaddressed. Complete enough to invoke, but not to invoke confidently.
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 parameter (limit) has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining it — and it says nothing about limit, its 1-500 range, a default value, or pagination behavior. The field list it does give maps to return values, not to the exposed parameter.
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 verified backups') and adds ordering ('newest first'), which tells an agent this is a read-listing operation rather than a single-snapshot fetch like verify_project_snapshot. It narrows to 'verified' backups, giving partial differentiation, but never names a sibling or clarifies scope (all projects vs. one).
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 when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like get_backup_status and verify_project_snapshot in the toolset, the description never says when an agent should list snapshots instead of checking status or verifying a single snapshot; the 'verified' qualifier is the only implicit routing hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.