Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-cloudflare-crunchtools

mcp-cloudflare-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

List Access Apps Tool

list_access_apps_tool
Read-only

Retrieve all Cloudflare Access applications configured for a specific zone by providing its zone ID. Use it to audit or manage access policies tied to that zone.

Instructions

List the Access applications on a zone.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "zone_id": "<zone_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_access_apps_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zone_idYesZone ID (32-character hex string)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.7.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond it. It says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or how many apps might be returned, which is the sort of context that would earn credit over the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight editing.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the sole parameter is documented. What is missing is operational context: no filtering, pagination, or relationship to the create/get/delete Access app siblings.

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 description coverage is 100% (the zone_id format is documented as a 32-character hex string), so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description only restates the scoping role of the zone without adding format or constraint detail, which is the baseline for full coverage.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List the Access applications') and scope ('on a zone'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_access_app_tool or list_access_policies_tool, but the resource is unambiguous.

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, prerequisites, or routing guidance is given. The description never mentions the sibling get_access_app_tool (for a single app) or note that a zone_id is required context, leaving the agent to infer selection on its own.

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