spinnaker-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List applications

list_applications

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover available Spinnaker applications and retrieve their metadata, including names, email, accounts, and cloud providers, as a starting point for querying pipelines or infrastructure.

Instructions

List all Spinnaker applications with their metadata. Use this as a starting point to discover available applications before querying pipelines or infrastructure. Returns JSON array of application objects with name, email, accounts, and cloud providers.

Tool call template

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_applications"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No	Number of records in items.
`items`	No	The records, when Gate answered with a list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.1Nov 1, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "The Gate response. A JSON object from Gate comes back as is; a JSON array comes back as {items, count}.",
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of records in items.",
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "description": "The records, when Gate answered with a list.",
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Apr 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the return shape (JSON array of objects with name, email, accounts, cloud providers), which is useful content context, but the output schema already exists, so this is modest added value rather than rich behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage and return information. Slight overlap with the output schema in the third sentence, but nothing is wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema present, the description still supplies the discovery-oriented workflow context an agent needs to place this tool correctly in a sequence. Nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource ('List all Spinnaker applications with their metadata') and says it returns all applications, which implicitly separates it from the singular sibling get_application. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a concrete usage context: 'Use this as a starting point to discover available applications before querying pipelines or infrastructure.' That tells the agent when to reach for it, though there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.