Scan ~/works for Expo app.json files to list every app with its name, slug, bundle ID, version, and path. Find and review all local Expo projects at a glance.
Lists all Expo apps found in ~/works/ by scanning for app.json files with expo configuration. Shows app name, slug, bundle ID, version, and path for each app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: the scan is scoped to ~/works/ and keys off app.json files containing expo configuration, and it enumerates exactly what is returned. It does not cover edge cases such as a missing directory, empty results, or scan depth, keeping it short of a 5.
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 tight sentences with the scope and mechanism front-loaded and the return fields following. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.
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 zero-param, read-only listing tool this is largely complete: it explains where it looks, how it finds apps, and what each result contains, which compensates for the absent output schema. Minor gaps remain around failure/empty-result behavior.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The listed output fields are a useful addition even though they are not inputs.
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 (Lists), resource (Expo apps), the discovery mechanism (scanning ~/works/ for app.json with expo config), and the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from scaffold_app (creates) and setup_store_config (configures).
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before scaffolding or configuring an app, but the description never says when to call it or that it is the read-only precursor to the siblings. No exclusions or conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.