yunxin_apps_listList and search Yunxin console applications under the current account, returning app name, app ID, activated products, plan, and creation time with keyword filtering and pagination.
列出当前账号下的云信应用，返回应用名称、appid、已开通产品、套餐和创建时间。支持按名称关键字搜索和分页。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 每页数量，默认 20 | |
| offset | No | 偏移量，默认 0 | |
| keyword | No | 应用名称关键字，留空列出全部 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely useful context: which fields come back and that results are searchable and paginated. It does not mention whether a total count is returned or any rate/account-scope limits, but with annotations present a 4 is warranted.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first, followed by return contents, then capabilities. No filler, and everything stated is relevant to deciding whether to call it.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully lists the return fields, and all parameters are covered by the schema. It falls short only on pagination response semantics (total count, ordering) and on how it relates to the many app-scoped sibling tools.
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%, so all three parameters (limit, offset, keyword) are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description only restates that keyword search and pagination are supported, adding no format or behavior detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 cloud apps under the current account) and enumerates what is returned (name, appid, enabled products, plan, creation time). An agent can distinguish this from yunxin_app_get by name and scope, though no sibling is explicitly named.
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 implies usage — browse all apps, optionally search by name keyword, or page through results — but never states when to prefer this over yunxin_app_get or other app-level siblings. The reader must infer that this is the discovery/entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.