list_my_appsListe les apps publiées rattachées au compte de l'utilisateur. Appelez cet outil quand il demande « quelles sont mes apps », veut retrouver l'adresse d'une app publiée précédemment, ou souhaite en modifier une sans avoir son jeton sous la main.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It describes the tool as listing published apps, implying a read-only operation. However, it doesn't disclose response format, authentication requirements, or potential differences in behavior (e.g., whether unpublished apps are excluded). The verb 'Liste' conveys safety, but additional context is lacking, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. 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?
Given the tool has no parameters or output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the resource scope (published apps, user account) and illustrates common use cases. It doesn't explicitly enumerate return fields, but the mention of 'retrouver l'adresse' implies the response includes app identifiers/addresses, which is adequate for this simple list tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds meaning by clarifying that the list is scoped to the user's account and includes published apps, which aligns with the parameter-free design.
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 it lists published apps attached to the user's account, using the specific verb 'Liste' and scope 'apps publiées rattachées au compte de l'utilisateur'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_app (singular) and update_app, which target a single app.
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 explicitly provides trigger scenarios: when the user asks 'quelles sont mes apps', wants to find the address of a previously published app, or wants to modify an app without having its token. This gives clear context on when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools or name alternatives, warranting a 4.
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 targets a clearly distinct resource and action: app metadata, app data, publishing, claiming, listing, deletion, and the guide. get_app and get_app_data are separated by metadata vs user JSON, and update_app vs set_app_data are separated by HTML/title vs stored data.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern in snake_case: claim_app, delete_app, get_app, get_app_data, get_publishing_guide, list_my_apps, publish_app, set_app_data, update_app. The convention is perfectly consistent.
Nine tools is well-scoped for the domain of publishing and managing single-file HTML apps with data persistence. Each tool serves a distinct lifecycle stage or data operation, with none feeling redundant or extraneous.
The set covers the full lifecycle: publish, read metadata, update, delete, claim, and list; plus data operations (get/set app data) and an explicit guide for the tricky data-evolution pattern. No obvious missing operation blocks the intended workflows.