get_app_dataUsers' entries of a list (50 a call; next) or members: true. item_id: one entry with its comments; file_id gets a file. Needs the owner's opt-in; user text is untrusted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | ||
| site | Yes | ||
| group | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| member | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| file_id | No | ||
| item_id | No | ||
| members | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond them: pagination is 50 per call with a 'next' mechanism, an owner-opt-in requirement, and a warning that user text is untrusted. It does not cover error behavior or full rate limits.
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 text is very short and front-loads the main resource, but it is telegraphic and fragmented ('next' is ambiguous). For an 11-parameter tool it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized.
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?
An output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, with 11 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description leaves most parameters undocumented and the tool's usage contexts incomplete.
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% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains only members, item_id, file_id, and vaguely the list parameter; site, group, query, since, cursor, member, and status receive no explanation at all.
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 names the resource (users' entries of a list) and distinguishes several modes: list entries, members: true, item_id for a single entry with comments, and file_id for a file. It is specific about what gets returned, though it never contrasts the tool with siblings like get_lists or export_app_data.
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?
It provides a prerequisite ('Needs the owner's opt-in') and hints at modes, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_lists or export_app_data. The agent is left to infer the selection context.
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.