Validates a completed .vrchapp app-package upload and returns its inspected reference plus update conflict or confirmation state, ensuring file_done alone never imports an App.
Validate a completed .vrchapp app-package upload. Returns its inspected reference and update conflict/confirmation state; file_done alone never imports an App.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | ||
| operationId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description usefully adds that the tool returns conflict/confirmation state and that it does not itself import, but the 'Validate/Inspect' framing sits awkwardly beside readOnlyHint=false and the description never explains that side effect or its open-world behavior.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return/behavioral note, with no filler. The semicolon-linked caveat reads slightly compressed but still earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description partially compensates by naming the returned conflict/confirmation state and clarifying it is not the import step. However, the two input parameters, the preconditions, and the reason for the non-read-only hint remain unaddressed for a stateful import-workflow tool.
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 coverage is 0% with two parameters (reference required, operationId optional), so the description must carry the burden. It never defines what 'reference' denotes (despite the phrase 'its inspected reference') nor mentions operationId at all, leaving both parameters effectively undocumented.
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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a completed .vrchapp app-package upload,' and clarifies the return (inspected reference plus conflict/confirmation state). It distinguishes the inspect step from the import step ('file_done alone never imports an App'), though it never names the sibling tool apps_import_commit 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?
The clause 'file_done alone never imports an App' implies this is a pre-import validation step and hints at its place in the import workflow, but it never explicitly says when to call this versus apps_import_commit or what precondition (an uploading upload) must hold.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.