Search apps and games and get short AppAgg summaries with links to full pages.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for apps by name, the other retrieves a summary by ID. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent pattern: appagg_ prefix with verb_noun structure (get_app_summary, search_apps). The naming is predictable and uniform.
With only two tools, the surface feels thin for a search-focused server, which might benefit from additional operations like filtering or browsing categories. However, it is a minimal but coherent set for basic search and summary retrieval.
The tools cover the core search and retrieval workflow. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no detail view beyond summary, no list or trending endpoints), but the primary purpose of searching and getting a summary is fully addressed.
Get a short app summary by AppAgg ID with a link to the full AppAgg page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appagg_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| app | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds helpful response behavior: it returns a 'short' summary and includes a link to the full AppAgg page, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, object, and key additional detail (link) with zero waste. Every word 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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It pairs naturally with the sibling search tool, and the output schema handles return-value details.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. It explicitly says 'by AppAgg ID', clarifying that the integer parameter appagg_id refers to an AppAgg identifier. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property name.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a short app summary by AppAgg ID' and mentions a link to the full AppAgg page. It is distinctly different from the sibling search_apps, which would be used to find IDs, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.
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 phrase 'by AppAgg ID' gives clear context for when to call this tool — once you already have the ID. It does not explicitly mention using the sibling search_apps to find IDs, but the distinction is strongly implied. No exclusions are stated, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search AppAgg by app, game, or developer name and return short summaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | |
| items | Yes | |
| next_page | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds genuine value by disclosing the search scope (app, game, or developer name) and the output format ('short summaries' rather than full records). This open-world behavior — incomplete summary results — is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place: the search dimensions and the output format are both conveyed with zero waste.
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?
For a read-only search tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential call context: what can be searched and what form the results take. The remaining gap is the unaddressed page parameter, though its constraints are documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the query parameter by specifying it accepts app, game, or developer names. However, the page parameter is left entirely to the schema's generic 'Page' title, with no explanation of pagination behavior or how results are split across pages. Partial compensation for the coverage 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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Search AppAgg by app, game, or developer name.' The search dimensions are specified precisely. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling appagg_get_app_summary, but the 'return short summaries' phrasing hints that a full-summary tool exists elsewhere, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 implies usage context — search is for finding apps and getting short summaries, which subtly suggests the sibling get_app_summary is for retrieving detailed records. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus appagg_get_app_summary, and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
appagg_get_app_summaryappagg_search_apps
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.