List captured applications with bundle IDs, observation counts, and available date ranges to identify what screen-memory data exists and where to query next.
List captured applications, bundle IDs, observation counts, and available date ranges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read-only operation and the description discloses what data is returned, but it omits scope (all vs filtered), pagination, sorting, auth, and rate limits, making it minimally adequate.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the verb first, and each listed attribute earns its place by telling the agent what comes back. No redundant phrasing or filler.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description identifies the returned entities and their key fields. It leaves the shape of 'available date ranges' and pagination behavior unspecified, but it is largely complete for correct invocation and interpretation.
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 no parameters, so the semantic baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and adds no parameter-level detail, which is appropriate for a zero-argument list call.
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 clear verb 'List' and resource 'captured applications', and enumerates returned attributes (bundle IDs, observation counts, date ranges). It does not name a sibling or clarify when to use it over tools like list_topics or read_app_day, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. Siblings such as read_app_day and search_screen_memory are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when list_apps is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.