list_resourcesList the organization's resources, newest first: each one's name, provider, plan, and state, and the apps it is attached to. Use it to find a resource to attach by name, or one no app holds before deleting it. It never returns a variable value. Requires connecting a Valet account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org_name | No | The Valet organization to list. Omit to use the organization the account joined first. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive status. The description adds ordering (newest first), the returned field set, the security-relevant guarantee that it never returns a variable value, and the prerequisite that a Valet account must be connected. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations.
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?
Three front-loaded sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, when to use it, and the two constraints (no variable values, account requirement). Zero filler.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields and ordering, and adds the auth prerequisite and a safety guarantee. Combined with annotations that cover the read-only profile, an agent has everything needed to call it 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%, so org_name and its default behavior are already fully documented. The description's phrase 'the organization's resources' hints at the parameter but adds no syntax or default detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for a fully-documented 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (the organization's resources) plus the scope of returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it yields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_catalog_resources, which is the main remaining gap.
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?
Gives concrete when-to-use guidance tied to siblings: find a resource to attach (attach_resource) or one no app holds before deleting it (destroy_resource). Clear context, though it stops short of naming those tools or stating exclusions.
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.