List all registered Node.js, Python, and Ruby applications in your cPanel account to manage them.
List all registered Node.js/Python/Ruby applications
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_passenger_apps"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool lists, but does not mention that it is read-only, what counts as 'registered', whether disabled apps are included, or any potential side effects. This lack of detail leaves significant gaps for an agent relying solely on the description.
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 concise sentence that precisely conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the return format or any behavioral nuances, and given the number of related Passenger tools, a bit more context (e.g., whether it includes disabled apps) would improve completeness.
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 and the schema is empty (coverage 100%). Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. There is no parameter description to add value because none exist, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 'List all registered Node.js/Python/Ruby applications' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('registered applications') with clear scope (Node.js/Python/Ruby). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like register_passenger_app, enable_passenger_app, and disable_passenger_app by indicating it is a read-only listing operation.
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 does not provide explicit usage guidance or mention alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough that users can infer when to use it (to view registered Passenger apps). No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, making it 'implied usage' rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.