View version history for a CMS file, including each saved content snapshot, so you can inspect changes and restore a prior version when needed.
View version history of a CMS file. Each version includes its saved content — to restore, pass that content back to update_http_function (the http_function file) or update_cms_file, or use restore_file_version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cms_file_id | Yes | CMS file ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful context: each version carries its saved content, and that content is what gets fed back to mutation tools. The caveat that update_http_function applies specifically to the http_function file is a helpful non-obvious detail. It stops short of describing ordering or pagination behavior.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler; the tool's function leads and the actionable restore path follows. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by explaining what a version contains (its saved content). Combined with the restore routing, an agent has enough to call it and act on results; only return ordering/shape details are absent.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents cms_file_id. The description adds no format, ID-source, or filtering detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 ('View version history of a CMS file'), which an agent can distinguish from sibling tools like get_page_versions or save_file_version. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, but the resource scope 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?
Gives a clear follow-up workflow: to restore, pass the version's saved content to update_http_function (for the http_function file) or update_cms_file, or call restore_file_version. This effectively tells the agent when to use each downstream alternative, though it doesn't state when this tool itself should be preferred over other history/inspection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.