Retrieve the list of apps tracked in your Storelift account, including IDs, names, countries, and keywords. Call this first to obtain an appId needed by other tools.
List the apps tracked in this Storelift account (id, name, countries, keywords). Call this first — every other tool needs an appId from here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does 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 structurally. The description adds the dependency/ordering behavior (this is the prerequisite for appId-based tools), which is genuine context beyond the annotations. It does not mention return volume or pagination, which is the only remaining 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, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the critical ordering instruction follows immediately; every clause earns its place.
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-parameter, read-only listing tool with rich annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it returns and that it is the mandatory first step. Without an output schema, a note on result size or format would be marginally useful, but not required to call it correctly.
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 the baseline is 4. The parenthetical field list describes return values rather than parameters, and no parameter semantics exist to document — nothing is missing on this axis.
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 the apps tracked in this Storelift account') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, countries, keywords). The 'tracked in this account' scope cleanly separates it from siblings like find_apps, market_new_apps, and hive_search_apps, which search external stores.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent when to call it: 'Call this first — every other tool needs an appId from here.' This is a strong ordering prerequisite that no sibling description could convey, and it removes any ambiguity about entry sequence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.