Retrieve detailed information about an installed app, including version, installation date, and a summary of permissions, to support app management and troubleshooting.
Egy alkalmazas reszletei: verzio, telepites datuma, engedelyek osszefoglaloja.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serial | No | ||
| package | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists some output fields and implies a read operation, but it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or how the app is identified. This is minimal transparency for an unannotated 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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the tool's purpose by naming the target resource and example output fields. It is economical, though slightly too terse to carry much behavioral or parameter 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?
Although an output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple, the description leaves parameter semantics and usage context unaddressed, and there are no annotations to compensate. An agent would likely understand what app_info returns, but not fully how to invoke it correctly in the broader toolset.
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 0%, and the description never mentions the 'package' or 'serial' parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's property names, leaving the optional 'serial' parameter entirely unexplained.
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 Hungarian description translates to 'details of an application: version, installation date, permissions summary,' which clearly identifies the resource and the kind of data returned. It implies a retrieval operation and distinguishes this from a tool like list_apps, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'return'.
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 alternatives like list_apps or device_info, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description states what the tool does but not where it fits among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.