list_storesLists the user's Appmixer data stores and returns their IDs so storage components can read and write to the correct store without guessing.
List the user's Appmixer data stores. Flows read and write these through the appmixer.utils.storage components, which need the store's ID — look it up here rather than guessing it.
| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It does add useful domain framing (flows read/write stores through appmixer.utils.storage components and require the ID), but says nothing about the shape of the result, ordering, or whether all stores are returned. Adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences, both earning their place: the first fixes what is listed, the second explains why an agent would call it. The motivation is front-loaded rather than buried, and there is no 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?
For a zero-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers purpose, motivation, and the downstream dependency on store IDs. The only gap is what the listing actually contains (names, IDs, metadata), which the agent must infer from 'look it up here'.
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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.
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 the user's Appmixer data stores') with an explicit scope ('the user's'), which cleanly separates it from create_store, get_store_records, and the flow-oriented siblings. It also names the domain concept the resource belongs to, so an agent knows what a 'store' is before calling.
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 a clear trigger for use: when a flow needs a store's ID via appmixer.utils.storage components, 'look it up here rather than guessing it' explicitly rules out fabrication. It stops short of naming the alternatives (create_store for creating, get_store_records for contents), so it is strong context without full routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.