Fine Structure

Get App Knowledge Access

get_app_knowledge_access

Read-onlyIdempotent

Which of the owner's notebooks an app's AI may answer from, and the ones it could be given.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "app_id": "<app_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_app_knowledge_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`app_id`	Yes	The app.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that the result distinguishes currently permitted notebooks from potentially grantable ones, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not discuss permissions needed or output shape.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

It is one compact sentence with no filler. However, it is a sentence fragment and the phrase 'ones it could be given' is slightly indirect.

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 single-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage and annotations, the description conveys the core return concept. It could be stronger by explicitly saying it returns current and available notebook access, but it is adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and app_id is documented as 'The app.' The description adds no additional meaning about app_id format or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description identifies the resource as an app's AI knowledge access and states the two things returned: notebooks it may answer from and notebooks it could be given. It does not explicitly name the sibling mutation set_app_knowledge_access, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies this is an inspection/read tool by describing the access state, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or when to choose it over set_app_knowledge_access or get_knowledge_notebook_access.

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

All Fine Structure tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?