get_appFull details of one hosted application: what it does, how to use it, measured benchmark scores, source repository, and the URL a human can open to run it. Example — GET https://ainetcafe.com/t/get_app?slug=
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Application slug, from list_apps. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| open_url | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the burden. The description adds value by enumerating the exact details returned (what it does, usage, benchmark scores, source repository, URL) and provides an example endpoint, which is useful behavioral context.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a concrete example without extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With a single parameter, an existing output schema, and thorough annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know. The example also clarifies URL construction, making the tool self-contained.
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 schema already documents the slug parameter with a description including its source (list_apps). The description's example reiterates this but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 it retrieves full details of one hosted application, naming specific content areas (what it does, usage, benchmark scores, repo, URL). It distinguishes from list_apps by focusing on a single application rather than a list.
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 example explicitly references list_apps to obtain the slug, implicitly guiding the agent to list first then get details. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for other scenarios.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that explicitly differentiate even close pairs like diff_tables vs reconcile_ledger and list_models vs model_costs. No two tools appear to do the same thing, and the what_can_you_do tool further resolves any confusion.
The majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (build_app, fetch_page, list_tasks), but several notable deviations exist: ai_visibility, china_reachability, model_costs, json_yaml, pdf_to_markdown, what_can_you_do, recall, remember, and jwt_decode. This mixed convention, while still readable, is not fully consistent.
With 34 tools, the count is high and exceeds the typical comfortable range for an MCP server. However, the server is a broad AI utility platform covering web, data, LLM, conversion, and scheduling tasks, and each tool appears to serve a distinct purpose with little redundancy, making the large but organized set borderline appropriate for its scope.
The tool surface covers a wide array of common workflows (search, fetch, table operations, PDF extraction, model comparisons, task scheduling, memory). However, check_job references deep_research, translate_pdf, and make_slides which are not present in the tool list, and there is no update tool for tasks/apps or a way to delete memories, leaving some user journeys incomplete.