List Cloudflare Access protected applications, including domains, session durations, and identity provider bindings. Use to audit or manage access policies.
List Cloudflare Access protected applications (domains, session durations, identity provider bindings).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. 'List' does convey a read-only, non-mutating operation and names the returned fields, but it says nothing about auth scope, pagination, result limits, or whether results are account-wide or zone-scoped.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource leads and the parenthetical detail is optional enrichment. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only listing with an output schema that already documents the return shape, the description covers the essentials. Only the missing auth/pagination context keeps it from a 5.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, which is the baseline-4 case under the rubric. There is nothing for the description to explain beyond the absence of filters, which the schema already establishes.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and a precisely named resource ('Cloudflare Access protected applications'), then enumerates what those apps contain (domains, session durations, identity provider bindings). No sibling tool touches Access applications, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.
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?
The resource name implies the use case (inspecting Access-protected apps), but the description never states when to reach for this tool, whether a prerequisite account/zone context is needed, or what alternative to use. With zero parameters the usage is largely self-evident, which keeps it at 'implied' rather than absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.