list_appsRetrieve all apps visible to your API key with IDs, bundle IDs, and SKUs. Use the optional name filter to find an app's ID before managing builds, testers, or listings.
Lists the apps this API key can see, with their IDs, bundle IDs and SKUs. Start here to find an app ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Only apps whose name contains this text. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered; the description adds the meaningful extra context that results are scoped to the API key's permissions and enumerates the returned fields. It omits pagination/result-count behavior, which is the only notable 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?
Two short sentences with no filler, front-loading what is listed and following with the practical next-step hint. Every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields and positions the tool as the entry point. For a simple, no-required-param list call this is nearly complete, lacking only pagination or ordering details.
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 'name' filter is fully documented there, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description never mentions that results can be filtered by name, adding no meaning beyond the schema.
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 ('Lists the apps') plus the visibility scope ('this API key can see') and the returned identifiers (IDs, bundle IDs, SKUs), which separates it from the app-specific siblings. It never names a sibling directly, but the scope and payload make the distinction inferable.
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?
'Start here to find an app ID' gives clear entry-point guidance and implies that downstream tools (get_app_status, list_builds) require an app ID discovered here. No explicit when-not or alternatives are named, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.