open-mcp-apps

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get app source

get_app

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read an app's UI source in bounded windows using offset/length, or fetch its manifest. Returns version and hash to enable precise range edits.

Instructions

Read an app's ui source as a WINDOW — offset/length select it, next_offset continues, total is the full length. Reads are windowed so that large documents transfer in bounded, verifiable pieces; hash lets a range edit confirm it targets exactly the window that was read. Carries version — the expected_version for edit_app / save_app — and hash, the expect_hash for a range edit of exactly this window. node jumps the window to the element marked data-oma-node="". slot:"manifest" returns the declaration object instead (no window mechanics).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`node`	No	read the element marked data-oma-node="<node>" — the window (and its hash) covers exactly that element (ui slot only)
`slot`	No	default ui; manifest returns {manifest: object\|null} whole
`length`	No	max characters for this window (default fits the result budget; ui slot only)
`offset`	No	character offset to read from (default 0; ui slot only)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`eot`	No
`hash`	No
`name`	Yes
`text`	No
`total`	No
`offset`	No
`version`	Yes
`manifest`	No
`returned`	No
`next_offset`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.0Sep 5, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / next_offset / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / next_offset / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedv0.5.7Aug 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: reads are windowed and verifiable, hash/version are returned to be fed to edit_app/save_app (expected_version, expect_hash). It stops short of stating limits on window size beyond the default budget or any failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence front-loads the window model well, but the middle portion is dense and repetitive: hash is explained twice ('hash lets a range edit confirm it targets exactly the window that was read' vs 'hash, the expect_hash for a range edit of exactly this window'). Several clauses could be tightened without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the windowing model, the node jump, the manifest slot, and how version/hash feed downstream edits. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether windows can be requested concurrently or any error behavior for out-of-range offsets.

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?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents name, node, slot, length and offset; the description mostly restates node/slot semantics and explains the returned window fields (next_offset, total, hash) rather than adding parameter syntax. With high schema coverage this is the expected baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read an app's ui source') and immediately qualifies the retrieval model ('as a WINDOW'), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_app_html (rendered html) and get_app_guide (documentation). The slot enum and node behavior are named, so an agent can tell what this tool returns without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear usage context: windowed reads are for transferring large documents in bounded pieces, node jumps the window to a marked element, and slot:"manifest" switches to declaration reading. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_app_html or get_app_guide instead, so there are no stated exclusions or named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.