List published application pools in the environment with pagination and optional filtering to identify available applications for entitlement and inventory management.
List published application pools in the environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based) | |
| size | No | Results per page (max 1000) | |
| filter | No | Horizon filter JSON string |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'List' and qualifier 'published' communicate that this is a read-only enumeration of a subset of application pools, which is meaningful context in the absence of annotations. It does not disclose behavior such as pagination limits, ordering, or how 'published' is determined, and there are no annotations to fill that gap.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that identifies the operation and scope in eight words. There is no filler, redundancy, or structural clutter.
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 simple paginated list tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to call the tool. It still omits any explicit hint about when to prefer this over sibling read tools, so it is not a perfect 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 input schema already describes all three parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them; it adds nothing about the expected filter JSON syntax or pagination semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is complete.
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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('published application pools'), so an agent immediately understands the operation and target. It does not reference sibling tools such as get_application_pool or list_desktop_pools, so there is some ambiguity for a reader unfamiliar with the pool hierarchy.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of get_application_pool, list_desktop_pools, or list_pool_entitlements. A phrase such as 'Use get_application_pool to fetch a single pool' would disambiguate; without it the agent must infer the correct choice from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.