$0.03/app — scan up to 50 App Store apps (version, rating, recent negatives).
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": {
"targets": "<targets>"
},
"name": "app_batch_scan"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targets | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful behavioral facts: a per-item cost of $0.03/app and a hard cap of 50 targets. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, failure handling, or what a scan response contains, leaving the disclosure incomplete for a batch/priced operation.
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 tight sentence with no waste, and the batch ceiling and cost are front-loaded. The leading price fragment is slightly abrupt but still efficient.
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 batch tool with one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the input identifier format and what the scan returns beyond three field names. The cost and cap disclosures help, but key invocation details are missing.
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 single 'targets' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the array holds App Store apps limited to 50, but never specifies the identifier format (app ID, bundle ID, URL) or whether entries must be unique, so compensation is only partial.
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 ('scan') and resource ('App Store apps') with an explicit batch scope of up to 50, and the parenthetical lists what the scan surfaces (version, rating, recent negatives). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like app_snapshot or app_intel_report, so it stops short of a 5.
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 gives no when-to-use context and never names an alternative among app_intel_report, app_landscape, app_review_changes, or app_snapshot. The pricing note hints at cost sensitivity but is not usage guidance.
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.