List the applications this API key can access, with the caller role and the permissions it grants. Start here when using a personal API key (usr_...): every other tool needs an explicit applicationId, which this tool supplies. Read-only, takes no arguments. Returns an array of { id, name, role, permissions }; an empty array means the key is valid but belongs to no application yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds beyond this by specifying the return format (array of {id, name, role, permissions}) and the meaning of an empty array (valid key but no application). No contradictions.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediate usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, return structure, and edge cases (empty array). No gaps.
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?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so baseline 4 applies. The description correctly notes 'takes no arguments', adding no further 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 verb 'List', the resource 'applications', and the scope (accessible by this API key). It also distinguishes this tool as the starting point for personal API keys, differentiating it from siblings that require an applicationId.
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?
Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Start here when using a personal API key (usr_...): every other tool needs an explicit applicationId, which this tool supplies.' Provides clear context for usage.
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.
Each get_/list_ tool targets a distinct resource and the descriptions carefully separate similar pairs like get_application_context vs get_workspace_summary and get_broadcast_details vs get_broadcast_analytics. The main ambiguity is apply_actions vs validate_actions, since one runs the other's validation, but the descriptions make that relationship explicit.
Names consistently follow verb_object snake_case and use familiar verbs like create, get, list, and update. Minor deviations such as read_messages instead of list_messages, apply_actions/validate_actions with plural nouns, and run_flow_autotest are still predictable and readable.
33 tools exceeds the 25-tool threshold and makes the surface feel heavy, even though the domain is broad. Many of the read-only getters are individually useful but could be consolidated, such as merging module catalog/details or workspace/application context.
Core workflows are covered: application lifecycle, flow editing through apply_actions, deployment, contacts, broadcasts, modules, and message/event reads. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated delete for contacts, applications, or broadcasts, and no rollback for deployments, but agents can work around or avoid these.
