fuast

Inspect an app

inspect_app

Read-only

Reads one thing about a deployed app. manifest: handlers, schema, indexes, endpoints, read metrics. tables: each table with its fields and row count. rows: rows of one table (give table; at most 100 per call, continue with cursor). usage: today's counters and limits. schedules: cron schedules and their last runs. jobs: scheduled jobs. Only the app's owner and workspace admins can inspect.

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": {
      "what": "<what>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`app`	No	The app's slug: the first label of its address (my-app for https://my-app.fuast.com). list_apps shows the slugs you can use.
`what`	Yes	What to read.
`limit`	No	For rows and jobs: most items to return. Default 25.
`table`	No	For rows: the table name.
`cursor`	No	For rows: next_cursor from the previous page.
`edit_token`	No	The edit_token deploy_app returned when it deployed a preview without an account. It is a secret: keep it in this conversation only.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobs`	No
`rows`	No
`slug`	Yes
`what`	Yes
`usage`	No
`tables`	No
`is_done`	No
`manifest`	No
`schedules`	No
`next_cursor`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: per-mode result contents, a hard 100-item page cap with cursor continuation, and the owner/admin authorization requirement. It stops short of saying how the cursor expires or how preview-app edit_token access interacts with the permission rule.

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?

The mode-by-mode enumeration is compact and front-loaded, with the authorization caveat as a closing sentence that earns its place. The list format is slightly dense to parse but contains no filler or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present and fully covered input schema, this description covers what an agent needs: mode semantics, pagination, and permissions. The remaining gap is the optional app parameter (defaulting behavior) and the role of edit_token for preview deploys, neither of which the description touches.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents app, what, limit, table, cursor, and edit_token in detail. The description reinforces the table/cursor pairing and the per-call cap but adds little the schema does not already state, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Reads one thing about a deployed app') and then enumerates exactly what each of the six modes returns (manifest fields, tables with row counts, paginated rows, usage counters, schedules, jobs). That enumeration makes it distinguishable in practice from siblings like get_app_source or get_logs, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives useful mode-selection hints ('rows: rows of one table (give table; at most 100 per call, continue with cursor)') and an access prerequisite ('Only the app's owner and workspace admins can inspect'), so usage is implied rather than ambiguous. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_app, check_app, or get_logs, and no note on what happens if the optional app is omitted.

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

All fuast 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?