flux_get_appLook up an app by name and return its published specification, expiry, running instances, and URLs for inspection.
Looks up any app on the network by name and returns its published specification, expiry, running instances and URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that it works for 'any app on the network' (not just the caller's own) and enumerates the return contents, implying a safe read. However, it does not mention auth requirements, whether unpublished apps are excluded, or error behavior for unknown names, leaving real gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
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 well-formed sentence with the lookup action and return payload front-loaded, and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves the guidance gaps noted elsewhere unaddressed.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does describe the shape of the return (spec, expiry, instances, URLs), which is the main thing an agent needs. But with no annotations and no sibling routing, it stops short of fully orienting the agent for correct selection and invocation.
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?
Exactly one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must supply meaning. 'By name' identifies the parameter as an app name lookup key, but adds no format, case-sensitivity, or validation detail beyond what the schema's required string already conveys.
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 (looks up) and resource (app on the network by name) and enumerates the returned payload: published specification, expiry, running instances, and URLs. This distinguishes it from siblings like flux_get_app_logs and flux_get_app_stats by content, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are stated. An agent gets no direction on whether to call this versus flux_list_my_apps for discovery or flux_get_app_stats for metrics, and no preconditions are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.