get_app_security_contextReturn safe security context for one owned app: owner id/email, Studio collaborators, generated-app members, route policies, entity policies, and recent security audit entries. Does not return secrets and does not grant access to other apps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| audit_limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by stating the response excludes secrets and does not grant cross-app access, which informs the agent about data sensitivity and permission boundaries. This goes beyond the annotations and provides actionable behavioral guidance.
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 that front-load the primary purpose and then state exclusions. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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 returns a complex security context object, and the description outlines the main components but lacks details on the response structure, field types, or how audit_limit behaves. Since there is no output schema and only partial parameter documentation, the description is not fully complete for an agent to predict the response shape or usage nuances.
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 description does not mention either parameter. The schema provides a minimal description for app_id and none for audit_limit, leaving its meaning unclear. With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the un-documented audit_limit parameter, which is a significant gap.
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 clearly states the tool returns a safe security context for one owned app, listing specific components (owner id/email, collaborators, members, policies, audit entries). It explicitly notes it does not return secrets or grant access to other apps, which distinguishes it from broader app management tools. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope and boundaries.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_app_security_audit or get_app_detail. It implies it's for owned apps and includes a warning about not granting access to other apps, but no direct comparison to sibling tools. This leaves usage context implicit rather than explicit.
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.