Get an app
get_appRetrieve the configuration for a specific AttriKit app by providing its app ID.
Instructions
Return one app's configuration.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The AttriKit app id. |
get_appRetrieve the configuration for a specific AttriKit app by providing its app ID.
Return one app's configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The AttriKit app id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as authentication needs, missing-app behavior, or what "configuration" includes.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, even if it is terse.
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?
The tool is simple and annotations plus schema cover much of the contract. However, with no output schema, the description does not characterize the returned configuration or failure modes, leaving a meaningful gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, and app_id is documented as "The AttriKit app id." The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource: "Return one app's configuration." The singular "one app" distinguishes it from list_apps, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or clarify scope.
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?
Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of list_apps as the alternative for enumerating apps. Usage is only implied by the singular resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.