List native sys_sg_screen metadata. Historical applet name retained; scope is an application scope, not a mobile application ID.
List native sys_sg_screen metadata. Historical applet name retained; scope is an application scope, not a mobile application ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| scope | No | Application scope sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / app_configRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Filter by app config sys_id",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +1000Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Input schema / properties / scopeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Application scope sys_id",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds naming/legacy caveats but says nothing about pagination (limit max 1000, no default stated) or what the returned metadata contains.
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, front-loaded with the resource, no filler. The legacy-name caveat earns its place by preventing a wrong assumption.
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?
A lightweight read-only list tool with no output schema, so the description needn't document returns, but it omits any hint of what sys_sg_screen metadata fields are, whether results are paginated, or what happens with no scope given.
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 50%: 'scope' is documented, 'limit' is not. The description usefully disambiguates scope ('application scope, not a mobile application ID'), which is real added meaning, but it leaves limit's default and paging behavior unexplained.
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 concrete verb+resource ('List native sys_sg_screen metadata'), but sys_sg_screen is internal jargon and the description doesn't relate it to the mobile-applet concept the tool name advertises. It also does not differentiate from siblings like list_mobile_app_configs or list_mobile_layouts.
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 (the 'applet' name is historical, scope is an application scope). No explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-another-tool guidance, and the sibling family is large enough that omission matters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.