list_applicationsList applications for one form in the authenticated organization. Requires an org API key with the applications:read scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formId | Yes | Form id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| applications | Yes | Applications for this form. The text block is this array as JSON. Applicant fields are only those the tool already returned. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / formId / descriptionAdded value: +"Form id."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "applications": {
+ "description": "Applications for this form. The text block is this array as JSON. Applicant fields are only those the tool already returned.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "applicantEmail": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "applicantName": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "createdAt": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "decidedAt": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "declineReason": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "deletedAt": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "formId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "formVersionId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Application id.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ipHash": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "notes": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "orgId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "submissionId": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "userAgent": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "orgId",
+ "formId",
+ "formVersionId",
+ "applicantEmail",
+ "applicantName",
+ "status",
+ "source",
+ "notes",
+ "decidedAt",
+ "declineReason",
+ "createdAt",
+ "ipHash",
+ "userAgent",
+ "submissionId",
+ "deletedAt"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "applications"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the authentication requirement and the exact scope needed, which is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the auth prerequisite. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. With the single parameter documented, safety covered by annotations, and the auth/scope requirement spelled out, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100% and the single formId parameter is documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'for one form' is consistent with the schema but adds no format, source, or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List applications') and constrains scope to 'one form in the authenticated organization'. It contrasts implicitly with the singular get_application sibling, but never names or distinguishes an alternative explicitly.
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 supplies a concrete prerequisite (an org API key with the applications:read scope), which implies this is the org-scoped listing path. However it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_application or other listing tools, leaving the agent to infer.
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.