Lists all applications in a Deployado account, with optional filtering by project ID so you can locate and manage apps in a specific project.
List all apps in your Deployado account. Optionally filter by project ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | Filter by project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no indication of ordering, result size, pagination, or whether apps from all projects are returned by default.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the optional filter trailing as a qualifier. Nothing repeats or pads.
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 listing tool with full annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers the essentials. It is nonetheless thin on what the agent gets back (a flat list? per-project grouping? pagination?) — acceptable given no output schema, but not complete.
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 parameter is documented as 'Filter by project ID', so the baseline is 3. The description mirrors that phrasing but does add the useful implication that omitting it returns every app in the account; it contributes nothing on the expected ID format or filter 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List all apps') and scopes it to the account, which cleanly separates it from siblings like deployado_get_app, deployado_create_app, and deployado_list_deployments. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.
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 only usage signal is 'Optionally filter by project ID' — there is no statement of when to reach for this versus deployado_get_app (single app) or deployado_list_projects, and no preconditions or exclusions. An agent can infer the obvious use case, but nothing is spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.