Read apps
apps_readRead-onlyIdempotent
Read the details of one app by its slug
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The app's URL slug, e.g. pomodoro-timer |
mu
by mu.micro
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed1 schema field changed
- changed
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"The app's URL slug (e.g. pomodoro-timer)"New value: +"The app's URL slug, e.g. pomodoro-timer"
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, authentication, or edge cases. For a simple read operation, this is adequate, but the description does not go beyond what annotations already convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler words and gets straight to the point, earning top marks for conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and fully covered schema. There is no output schema, but the description 'read the details' sufficiently implies the return value. Given the low complexity and clear annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the slug parameter with an example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description mentions 'by its slug' but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema provides complete parameter details, the description meets the baseline without needing to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read the details of one app by its slug', using a specific verb 'read' and a specific resource 'details of one app'. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apps_search (which searches for apps) and apps_run (which runs apps), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: if you have a slug and need details of one app, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like apps_search or conditions under which this tool should not be used. This is implied guidance rather than explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use, matching a mid-range score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool is prefixed with a clear domain (e.g., apps_, blog_, transit_), and the suffix identifies a distinct action or resource. Overlapping tools like archive_search and news_search are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools consistently use a domain_prefix_suffix pattern, but the suffix is sometimes a verb (create, list, search) and sometimes a noun (inbox, status, address). This minor mixing prevents a perfect score but remains predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 113 tools, the count is far beyond the typical well-scoped range, even for a broad personal assistant. While each tool is distinct and serves a purpose, the sheer number is overwhelming and could be better organized into separate domain-specific servers.
Completeness4/5
Each domain has near-complete lifecycle coverage, including CRUD and search where relevant, with only minor gaps such as missing apps_delete or events_update. The wide range of covered domains itself demonstrates strong completeness for a general assistant.