cloud_app_listList deployed Git-based apps before creating new ones to avoid duplicates; optionally check sandbox apps without provisioning real infrastructure.
App từ git đã live: app host đầu tiên ~2–3 phút, deploy sau đó 10–20 giây. / Git apps are live. Liệt kê app trước khi tạo để tránh trùng. / List apps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sandbox | No | Thử 0đ, không tạo hạ tầng thật / Sandbox, no charge |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some unrelated deployment timing context but does not clarify what the list returns, whether it's scoped to the caller, or any auth/permission requirements. It adds little value beyond annotations and may confuse by mentioning deployment timing not relevant to listing.
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 fragmented, mixes languages mid-sentence, and front-loads irrelevant deployment timing information before the actual purpose. The content does not earn its place 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what the list contains (e.g., app names, IDs) and any filtering constraints. Instead it includes tangential information about git deployment and duplicate avoidance, leaving the agent without key context about the return structure or scope.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'sandbox' is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds no additional meaning about the sandbox parameter or any filtering behavior.
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 contains 'Liệt kê app' / 'List apps', which restates the tool name cloud_app_list without adding a specific scope. The first sentence about git app deployment timing is unrelated to listing apps and obscures the purpose. It does not distinguish from siblings like cloud_app_host_list or cloud_app_get.
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 says to list apps before creating to avoid duplicates, which gives a clear pre-creation use case. However, it does not mention alternatives like cloud_app_get for a single app or cloud_app_host_list, and provides no explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.