Retrieve all applications with sorting, pagination, and optional related data. Use query filters and the with parameter to include versions or issue counts.
Get all applications. Retrieve all applications.
Apply sorting and pagination to organize the results. Include related data using the relations parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no pagination defaults, no maximum page size behavior, no indication of what an empty result means.
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?
The first two sentences are duplicate statements of the same fact, and the third and fourth sentences restate what the schema already documents. Structure is not front-loaded with anything an agent cannot infer, and half the text is wasted.
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 nested parameters, a search field, and a large family of sibling tools, the description omits default page size, ordering behavior when unspecified, and the relationship to get_application. It is not sufficient for an agent to call this confidently without opening the schema.
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?
Top-level schema description coverage is 0% (the single `query` object is undocumented at that level), but the nested properties carry rich descriptions and enums for page, limit, order, with, and query. The description only echoes sorting/pagination/relations at a high level without adding syntax or constraints, so it neither compensates nor detracts much.
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?
"Get all applications" states a verb and resource, but the second sentence ("Retrieve all applications") is a pure restatement that adds nothing. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_application (single resource), leaving the collection-vs-single distinction implicit in the name alone.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this collection endpoint versus get_application, get_my_project_collection, or any filtered alternative. The remaining sentences describe what parameters do, not when to reach for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.