list_appsFind reusable UI apps in the registry, then pass an exact app name to look one up and open it in any chat.
List UI apps in the registry (reusable across all chats) — pass name to look one up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | exact app name — the fastest way to answer "open my X" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.1Input schema / properties / kindRemoved value: -{
- "description": "default app: what a person opens and reuses",
- "enum": [
- "app",
- "visual",
- "primitive",
- "any"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / visibilityRemoved value: -{
- "description": "default featured+listed; archived/unlisted are retired or long-tail",
- "enum": [
- "featured",
- "listed",
- "unlisted",
- "archived",
- "any"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}v0.5.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the registry/chats scope ('reusable across all chats'), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the lookup hint trailing. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is padding.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to select and invoke it correctly. The only gap is that it doesn't indicate what the listing returns or its shape, which is minor given the 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 param is already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the lookup use case for 'name' but adds no format or matching details beyond what the schema already says.
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+resource ('List UI apps in the registry') and adds scope context ('reusable across all chats') that separates it from app_store_list, which lists store entries rather than installed apps. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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?
It hints at the lookup pattern ('pass name to look one up') for the optional name param, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name alternatives such as get_app or app_store_list. Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.