Retrieve the version history of a Yuque document by its ID. Returns the last 100 published versions to track changes over time.
List document version history (last 100 published versions). GET /doc_versions?doc_id=:id. 详见 references/api/doc_api.md
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return raw full JSON (default false, returns trimmed fields) | |
| doc_id | Yes | Document ID (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 100-version cap and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about permissions/auth requirements or the return shape. Adequate but incomplete for an annotation-free tool.
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?
Very tight and front-loaded: purpose, scope, then endpoint and a reference pointer. Every sentence earns its place, though the mixed-language reference pointer is only marginally useful in-line.
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 no-output-schema list tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, cap, and endpoint adequately; the raw param's trimmed-vs-full behavior is deferred to the schema. Only permissions and returned-field detail are missing, which is minor here.
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 both doc_id and the raw toggle are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond restating doc_id in the URL template, so baseline 3 is 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+resource — 'List document version history' — and adds the scope 'last 100 published versions'. This is clearer than a bare name restatement, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like yuque_get_doc_version_detail or yuque_diff_doc_versions.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to enumerate versions, but the description names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. to inspect one version use get_doc_version_detail, to compare use diff_doc_versions). Minimum viable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.