get_v2_app_store_app_detailsApp Store / App Details Group: Mobile Apps. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_v2_app_store_app_details"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | No | App Store App ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions billing cost ('1 Credits'). It does not disclose return format, authentication needs, rate limits, or confirm that this is a safe read operation beyond the implication in the name.
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 very short and front-loaded, with the category and billing information in one compact line. It is concise, though the 'App Store / App Details' group label is somewhat redundant with the title.
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 get-details tool, the description is minimally usable alongside the schema. However, it omits usage context, return behavior, and safety cues that would help an agent fully understand the tool without annotations or an output schema.
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 describes app_id as 'App Store App ID' with an example, so schema coverage is complete. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
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 labels the tool as 'App Store / App Details' under Mobile Apps, which clearly communicates that it returns details for an Apple App Store app. It relies on the tool name for the 'get' verb and does not explicitly state the action, but it still distinguishes from Play Store siblings.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_v2_play_store_app_details or app analytics siblings. The 'Mobile Apps' group label gives only a category, not selection criteria or exclusions.
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.