list_integrationsList supported integrations and safe connected integration metadata for an app. Tokens/secrets are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context by promising that tokens/secrets are never returned. This is beyond what the structured annotations provide and clarifies the safety of the operation, though it does not detail the exact return format 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource while also adding the safety disclaimer. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant content.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core behavior, especially the important detail about never returning secrets. It could be more explicit about whether 'supported integrations' includes both connected and unconnected ones, but overall it provides enough context for correct invocation.
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 input schema already documents app_id with a basic description ('The app ID'), and coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning or elaboration beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 tool lists supported integrations and safe metadata for an app, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from other tools by noting that tokens/secrets are never returned, which helps differentiate it from configuration or write tools like configure_integration.
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?
While the description implies a read-only listing use case (e.g., 'safe metadata', 'tokens/secrets are never returned'), it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like configure_integration. There is no direct comparison or exclusion of other sibling tools, so the agent must infer the usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are some overlapping pairs like read_app_file/read_app_files and create_entity_records vs seed_entity, which could cause misselection. Singular/plural variants and compatibility tools introduce minor ambiguity, but the majority are well-separated.
Tool names predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_app, get_entities, delete_secret). There are some variations like 'agency_create_client' and 'seed_entity' that deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
With 82 tools, the server is far above the typical range and feels overwhelming. Even for a full platform API, the count is extreme and likely increases selection complexity. A more curated set would improve navigability without sacrificing capability.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering app lifecycle, file operations, entity CRUD, versioning, A/B testing, secrets, integrations, domains, agents, scheduling, policies, and member management. No obvious missing operations for the platform's scope; it even includes validation and workflow guidance tools.