service_listList all apps and addons in a Lizard project to review what services are deployed. Provide a project name, slug, or ID to see every service in that project.
Use this when the user wants to see all apps and addons in a Lizard project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project name, slug, or ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds only the listing scope, without covering pagination, authentication requirements, or whether stopped services are included, so it adds limited behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It states the use case immediately and remains appropriately concise for a simple list operation.
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 one-parameter read-only list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It could be stronger by clarifying sibling boundaries or return scope, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single project parameter is already documented as accepting a name, slug, or ID. The description reinforces that the listing is scoped to a project but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific action and scope: seeing all apps and addons within a Lizard project. It is clearer than a bare name, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from nearby siblings such as service_show or project_list.
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?
It gives a clear trigger: use this when the user wants to see all apps and addons in a project. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives like service_show for a single service, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.