Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Flux Cloud MCP server

Flux Cloud MCP server

Official
by RunOnFlux
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List apps owned by the configured Flux ID

flux_list_my_apps

List every app registered by a configured Flux ID or specified owner, including expiry dates and instance counts, with optional name filtering.

Instructions

Lists every app registered by the owner (or a given Flux ID) with expiry and instance counts.

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": "flux_list_my_apps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerNoFlux ID to list; defaults to the configured one.
nameContainsNoOnly apps whose name contains this text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context by naming what each entry includes (expiry and instance counts), but it says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or what 'the configured Flux ID' resolves to.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb, resource, scope, and return contents in one pass. Nothing redundant or padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool with two optional params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — it even names the returned fields. Only the absence of any auth/pagination note keeps it from being fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's parenthetical ('or a given Flux ID') loosely maps to the owner parameter but adds no format or semantics beyond it, and nameContains goes unmentioned.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists every app registered by the owner') with a clear scope ('every app') that distinguishes it from the single-app sibling flux_get_app. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the plural/scoped framing makes the distinction inferable.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives are given; the agent must infer that this is the bulk-listing counterpart to flux_get_app. The parenthetical about the Flux ID default is a parameter note, not usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools