list_my_appsList the apps registered in your LaunchTrust account, with each one's latest scan status. Requires a LaunchTrust token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the authentication requirement ('Requires a LaunchTrust token') beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description provides useful context without 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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the token requirement is added as a brief second sentence. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a key requirement. It explains what is returned (list with latest scan status), though the exact structure is omitted. This is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter information is needed, and the description does not need to compensate.
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' and the resource 'apps registered in your LaunchTrust account', and adds specific detail about including the latest scan status. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_jurisdictions.
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?
The description mentions a prerequisite (LaunchTrust token) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like list_jurisdictions exist, but no differentiation or usage context is given.
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 tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving rules vs jurisdictions vs scan results vs triggering scans vs verification. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun (snake_case) pattern: get_, list_, register_, scan_, verify_. Conventions are uniform throughout.
9 tools cover the essential operations for compliance scanning: registration, scanning (full and quick), results retrieval, history, and verification. The scope feels well-calibrated.
Core CRUD-like coverage is present: register, scan, read results, verify. Missing update/delete for apps or scans is a minor gap but not critical for the domain's primary workflow.