Retrieves internal Marketplace backoffice application data by application ID. Use to fetch application details from the backoffice API, which is disabled by default.
Read internal Marketplace backoffice data. This is not a public API and is disabled by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| application_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds meaningful context beyond them: that this is not a public API and is disabled by default, which is a real operational precondition. It stops short of saying how to enable it or what permissions are required.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the domain/scoping statement is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for what it conveys, though the second sentence could be more actionable.
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 single-parameter read tool whose annotations already declare the safety profile, the missing parameter meaning is the main gap, and there is no output schema to compensate. The description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent to infer the argument's identity and the return shape.
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%, so the description must carry the burden for the single application_id parameter, and it says nothing about it. The agent must infer that the required integer identifies the application being read.
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 says it reads 'internal Marketplace backoffice data,' which conveys the domain but never names the resource (an application record) that the tool name implies. It also fails to distinguish this tool from the sibling marketplace_get_application, so an agent cannot tell why this one exists alongside it.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as marketplace_get_application. The 'disabled by default' note hints at a precondition but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.