Retrieve a single owned application by filtering the authoritative developer-account list using partner_id and application_id, ensuring caller ownership.
Get one owned application by filtering the authoritative developer-account application list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| partner_id | Yes | Developer account ID used for caller ownership checks | |
| 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are restricted to callers who own the application and are drawn from the authoritative developer-account list. It says nothing about error behavior or what happens for non-owned IDs.
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?
One tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The phrase 'authoritative developer-account application list' is slightly abstract but still carries scoping 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?
For a two-parameter read with no output schema, the description conveys the core retrieval semantics and ownership scoping, and annotations carry the safety profile. It remains ambiguous versus the very similar backoffice_get_application sibling, which is the main missing differentiator.
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 50%: partner_id is documented in the schema as the developer account used for ownership checks, while application_id has no description. The description's mention of 'owned' and the developer-account list loosely reinforces partner_id's role but adds no format or constraint detail, so it roughly matches the baseline for partial coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('one owned application') plus the retrieval mechanism (filtering the developer-account application list). It implicitly scopes to caller-owned apps, which helps separate it from list_ applications. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling marketplace_backoffice_get_application.
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 word 'owned' implies the caller must have ownership and that a partner/developer account is involved, so usage context is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to the backoffice variant or list_applications as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.