cnc-mcp

List Installed Applications

cnc_list_applications

Read-onlyIdempotent

List installed Crosswork applications and versions to check feature availability before relying on topology, SR-TE, or VPN services.

Instructions

List the applications installed on the Crosswork platform with their versions (e.g. Crosswork Optimization Engine, Service Health, ...).

Read-only. Use it to check what is installed and at which version before assuming a feature (topology, SR-TE, VPN services) is available on this instance.

Returns: str: Markdown "name (application_id) version — description" lines, or JSON: {"count": int, "items": [{"application_id": str, "application_data": {"version": str, "summary": {"name": str, "description": str}, "category": str, "build_information": {"date_time": str, "publisher": str}}}, ...]} On failure: "Error: ".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`response_format`	No	'markdown' for human-readable output, 'json' for complete data.	markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' mostly restates structured data. The one genuinely additive behavioral detail is the failure mode ('Error: <actionable message>'), but nothing is said about latency, pagination, or freshness of the installed-application data.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose and usage sentences are front-loaded and efficient, but the large 'Returns' block unpacks a nested JSON payload field-by-field, which is substantial duplication given an output schema exists. Roughly half the text is redundant structure rather than guidance.

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?

The tool is inherently simple (one optional param, read-only), and the description covers purpose, usage context, and failure behavior. Since an output schema exists, the detailed return enumeration is unnecessary rather than missing, so completeness is high.

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% with a single optional response_format parameter whose enum and per-value meaning are documented in the schema. The description never mentions response_format, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('List the applications installed on the Crosswork platform') and concretely grounds it with examples of the applications returned. It is clearly distinguishable from the device, credential, provider, and topology siblings, which all operate on different resources.

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?

Gives explicit situational guidance: use it to check what is installed and at which version before assuming a feature (topology, SR-TE, VPN services) is available. It doesn't name a competing sibling or a when-not-to-use case, but for a simple unfiltered list tool the usage context is clear.

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