List every WeAD app with its stage (Live, Beta, Alpha, Coming 2027) and link.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_apps"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | No | Optional filter: Live, Beta, Alpha or Coming 2027 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and mentions returned fields, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether 'every' app is truly exhaustive.
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 efficient sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler 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?
For a simple list tool with one optional filter and no output schema, the description covers the resource, filter values, and key return fields. However, it omits pagination, ordering, and other behavioral details that would fully prepare an agent without annotations.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the single optional 'stage' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the allowed stage values but adds no additional filter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every WeAD app'), plus the returned fields ('stage' and 'link'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but the resource is clearly distinct from documents/status tools.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'; there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints are provided.
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.