list_user_backupsList backups for a specified user to verify backup status and retrieve backup records. Provides a clear view of available backups for a given account.
List a user's backups. Executes verified command v-list-user-backups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | ||
| format | No | json |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| command | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the underlying command name 'v-list-user-backups', which gives a hint about execution. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any side effects. With annotations handling the main safety traits, the description adds minimal extra transparency.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a second sentence noting the underlying command. It is concise, with no redundant words, and immediately conveys the primary purpose.
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 read-only list tool with an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks usage context (when to use, alternatives) and parameter explanations. Given the simplicity of the operation, it is adequate but leaves gaps that an agent might need to infer.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'user' parameter (though the phrase 'a user's backups' implies it) and provides zero information about the 'format' parameter (enum json/plain). The parameter names are self-explanatory but the description adds almost no semantic value beyond the schema.
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 the action: 'List a user's backups.' It is specific to a resource (user backups) and distinguishes from other list tools like list_users or list_web_domains by naming the exact resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as backup_user (for creating backups) or get_user (for general user info). It lacks any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. There is no mention of when this tool is appropriate or not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.