TrueNAS MCP

List Apps

list_apps

List all installed k3s applications with their current state and version to monitor deployments on TrueNAS.

Instructions

List installed applications (k3s apps) with state and version.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_apps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but 'List' reasonably implies a read-only enumeration and it discloses that state and version are reported. It says nothing about pagination, whether stopped/errored apps are included, or permission requirements, so the disclosure is adequate but thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every clause (k3s qualifier, returned fields) earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the resource and the key returned attributes. Minor gaps remain around scope (all apps vs. running only) and auth, but the output schema covers return-value detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 of 4 applies. The mention of 'state and version' usefully signals what is available in the response.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('installed applications'), and clarifies the domain with '(k3s apps)' so it is not confused with generic application management. It also names the returned fields of interest (state, version). It does not explicitly differentiate from search_app_catalog, though 'installed' implicitly does so.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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 for inspecting what is currently installed, as opposed to install_app/search_app_catalog for discovering new apps. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.