get_appShow the details of one app from the catalog and whether it is installed.
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": {
"appId": "<appId>"
},
"name": "get_app"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | App slug, e.g. zoom. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds only the useful fact that installation status is included; it says nothing about lookup failure behavior for an invalid slug.
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?
One sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb, resource, and the notable installation-status output.
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 single-param read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description is nearly sufficient; only edge-case lookup behavior is unstated, which the absence of an output schema makes less critical.
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 coverage is 100% and the single appId parameter is documented with an example ('zoom'), so the schema carries the weight. The description adds no format or slug-resolution detail beyond it.
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?
States a specific verb (show details) and resource (one app from the catalog), plus the meaningful extra that installation status is returned. This distinguishes it from list_app_catalog and update_app_credentials, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: fetch a single app's details by slug. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_app_catalog or how to handle an unknown slug, so the agent must infer.
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.