ably_list_appsList all apps in the account (id, name, status, tls-only). Account id is resolved automatically from the control token when ABLY_ACCOUNT_ID is unset. Control API: GET /accounts/{account_id}/apps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | No | Override the account id (defaults to the token's account). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers safety. The description adds the field list and the automatic account_id resolution logic, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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 sentences, no filler. The main action and output fields appear first, and the account-id resolution detail and API endpoint follow efficiently.
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?
Complete for a simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers purpose, behavior, parameter default, and endpoint, leaving nothing an agent needs 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% and documents account_id's override/default behavior. The description adds the nuance that resolution happens via the control token when ABLY_ACCOUNT_ID is unset, which complements the 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 and resource ('List all apps in the account') with the exact fields returned. The sibling tools target other Ably resources (channels, keys, queues), so this definition clearly distinguishes itself.
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?
Clear context for a read-only listing operation, plus the automatic account-id resolution behavior. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set makes the intended use obvious.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: account-level stats, app-level stats, channel details, history, presence, presence history, service time, and each control-plane listing (apps, keys, namespaces, queues, rules) are clearly separated. The only potentially confusing pair is account stats vs app stats, but their descriptions explicitly differentiate account-wide vs API-key-scoped usage.
All tools use a uniform 'ably_' prefix followed by a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_ for single resources, list_ for collections, publish_message for the write action, and whoami for token details. There are no mixed casing styles or inconsistent verb choices.
Fifteen tools is within the ideal range and each one covers a meaningful Ably capability, from control-plane inspection to channel data retrieval and publishing. The count feels justified given the breadth of Ably's API surface, with no redundant or filler tools.
The read side is well covered: stats, channel details, history, presence, and control-plane listings all have dedicated tools, and message publishing provides one write path. However, there are no create/update/delete operations for apps, keys, namespaces, queues, or rules, so lifecycle management is largely absent and an agent could not perform common administrative workflows.