HAOps MCP Server

haops_list_protocol_versions

Retrieve all versions of a work protocol for a given agent role, including version numbers, timestamps, change summaries, and updater details.

Instructions

List all versions of a work protocol for a specific agent role. Returns version numbers, timestamps, change summaries, and who updated each version.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>",
      "role": "<role>"
    },
    "name": "haops_list_protocol_versions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	Yes	Agent role to list protocol versions for (e.g., architect, dev, qa, devops)
`projectSlug`	Yes	The project slug (URL identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool lists versions and returns specific fields, implying read-only operation. However, it does not disclose ordering, pagination, limits, or behavior when no versions exist. This is basic but not comprehensive.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second lists return fields. Front-loaded and to the point.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given two simple parameters, no output schema, and complete schema descriptions, the description covers the essential functionality and return data. Minor gaps remain (e.g., ordering, pagination) but it is largely sufficient for an agent to use the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (role and projectSlug). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it lists all versions of a work protocol for a specific agent role, and enumerates the returned fields (version numbers, timestamps, change summaries, who updated). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like haops_read_protocol (reads current protocol) and other list tools.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like haops_read_protocol or haops_get_protocol_health. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or how the returned versions relate to other protocol operations.

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

Deploy Server