action1-mcp-server

Re-querying installed apps

action1_requery_installed_software_for_org

Destructive

Initiate an asynchronous requery of an organization's installed software inventory to refresh stale data. Preview by default; set dry_run to false to execute.

Instructions

Re-querying installed apps. This API method initiates an asynchronous update ("requery") of the installed software inventory. Perm: view_installed_software.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`org_id`	No	Org UUID.
`confirm`	No	Required to execute. Exact string "YES".
`dry_run`	No	Default true (preview). Set false to execute.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`tool`	No
`type`	No
`status`	No
`dry_run`	No
`would_send`	No
`user_message`	No
`developer_message`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed11 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 26, 2026
- changedInput schema / $schema
```
Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
```
- changedOutput schema / $schema
```
Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
```
- changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / developer_message
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / dry_run
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / id
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / status
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / tool
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / type
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / user_message
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / would_send
```
Added value: +{}
```
First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds real value beyond the annotations: it says the operation is asynchronous (so results arrive later and must be fetched separately) and states the required permission (view_installed_software). But it doesn't explain why annotations mark this dangerous (destructiveHint true) — e.g., it triggers a fresh inventory scan on agents, which may be costly — or how to check completion.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

It's three short sentences and front-loaded, with the async nature and permission stated up front. The opening 'Re-querying installed apps' only restates the title and could be cut, which keeps it from being maximally tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an async, destructive-flagged mutation with a dry-run gate and an output schema, it's too thin. It omits how to retrieve results after the requery, doesn't clarify the org-vs-endpoint scope against its sibling, and says nothing about the confirm/dry_run safety flow.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (org_id, confirm, dry_run), which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing further about them, and it doesn't mention the confirm='YES' safety gate that is central to invoking this tool correctly.

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

Purpose4/5

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

A specific verb and resource: it 'initiates an asynchronous update of the installed software inventory.' However, the description never states the org-level scope that distinguishes it from the sibling action1_requery_installed_software_for_endpoint — only the tool name carries that distinction, so an agent reading the description alone can't tell which one to use.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance beyond the implicit 'you want a requery.' It doesn't name the endpoint-scoped sibling as an alternative, or say when to prefer one over the other. It also doesn't mention the dry_run default-true workflow that gates execution.

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

Deploy Server