$0.50 — sentiment & negative-review report with takeaways.
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": {
"target": "<target>"
},
"name": "app_intel_report"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the $0.50 cost, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication or rate limits apply, and what format or depth the report returns.
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 extremely short and front-loads the cost and report type, so it wastes no words. However, it is under-specified for a tool whose schema and annotations provide almost no supporting information.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the target input and output expectations. It only states the cost and report topic, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.
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 required parameter 'target' has 0% schema description coverage and is not explained in the description at all. An agent cannot tell whether target expects an app ID, URL, package name, or search phrase.
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 clearly identifies the report type as sentiment and negative-review focused with takeaways, which is a specific resource. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like app_landscape or app_review_changes, but the intended output is distinguishable from those tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as app_landscape, app_snapshot, or app_review_changes. The price and report type imply a one-off paid analysis, but no explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.
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.