get_app
Get detailed information about a specific app including its Docker service status.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | App ID (UUID) or subdomain |
WebSlop
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get detailed information' and 'including its Docker service status', which is minimal and does not reveal potential side effects, permissions, output format, or error conditions. The tool appears read-only but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it efficient and easy to scan for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the returned detailed information includes. It only mentions 'Docker service status' but leaves the rest vague. It does not specify other potential fields, return structure, or when to prefer this over get_app_status, making it incomplete for a read tool without schema support.
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?
The input schema describes the only parameter 'app' as 'App ID (UUID) or subdomain' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond 'specific app', which is consistent with the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool gets detailed information about a specific app, using the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'app'. It mentions 'including its Docker service status', which partially distinguishes it from get_app_metrics and list_apps, but does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool get_app_status.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like get_app_status or get_app_metrics. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios, leaving the user without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few pairs could be confused: get_app vs. get_app_status both report on app state, and update_app vs. set_node_version both modify runtime configuration. Descriptions are detailed enough to mitigate most ambiguity, but the overlap is notable.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_apps, create_app, delete_file). Minor deviations include the bare verb 'login' and the noun-first 'git_info', which break the pattern slightly but are still understandable.
Tool Count3/5
At 37 tools, the set is on the heavy side, well above the typical 3-15 range. However, the server covers a broad PaaS domain (auth, app lifecycle, file management, packages, versions, git, metrics), and each tool addresses a distinct operation. It feels over-engineered in places but not gratuitously so.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is impressively complete for a deployment platform: authentication, app CRUD, start/stop/restart, file operations (read/write/delete/rename/search/upload), package management, version snapshots and restore, git remote and push/pull, logs, metrics, and configuration. No critical dead-ends are apparent.