get_app_detailDeep introspection of an app: entities, pages, settings, integrations, environment variables, and file structure. Use this to understand what an app contains before updating it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the scope of returned data (entities, pages, settings, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations; it complements them with content coverage.
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?
The description is two concise sentences: the first lists the tool's scope, the second gives the usage context. There is no fluff or repetition. The key information is front-loaded, and every word serves a purpose.
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?
The tool is complex (aggregating many app components) and has no output schema. The description lists the major categories of data returned, which provides decent guidance. It does not specify the exact structure or whether pagination is involved, but for an introspection tool, the listed categories are likely sufficient for an agent to decide to call it. It's complete enough for effective selection.
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 only parameter, app_id, is fully described in the schema with 'The app ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter details. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Deep introspection' with a clear resource ('an app') and enumerates its contents: entities, pages, settings, integrations, environment variables, and file structure. This clearly distinguishes it from more targeted siblings like get_app_files, get_pages, and get_entities, which cover only subsets.
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?
The description provides a clear usage context: 'Use this to understand what an app contains before updating it.' This implies a proactive overview use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the existence of numerous narrower sibling tools suggests they exist. It's clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are some overlapping pairs like read_app_file/read_app_files and create_entity_records vs seed_entity, which could cause misselection. Singular/plural variants and compatibility tools introduce minor ambiguity, but the majority are well-separated.
Tool names predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_app, get_entities, delete_secret). There are some variations like 'agency_create_client' and 'seed_entity' that deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
With 82 tools, the server is far above the typical range and feels overwhelming. Even for a full platform API, the count is extreme and likely increases selection complexity. A more curated set would improve navigability without sacrificing capability.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering app lifecycle, file operations, entity CRUD, versioning, A/B testing, secrets, integrations, domains, agents, scheduling, policies, and member management. No obvious missing operations for the platform's scope; it even includes validation and workflow guidance tools.