app_settingsRetrieve an application's deployment settings—address, source repository and branch, push-to-deploy status, and root directory—to verify how and where it deploys.
Its address, source, repository and branch, whether a push deploys it (deployOnPush), and its root directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful field inventory (address, source, repository, branch, deployOnPush, root directory), but it omits that it reads settings for the linked/current app and gives no return-shape notes.
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 single sentence is compact, but it is a sentence fragment with an unclear subject ('Its') and does not front-load the retrieval action. The field list is efficient, but the structure could be clearer.
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?
This is a low-complexity read-only getter with no params and no output schema, and the field list partially describes return values. However, it does not say which application (linked/current) the settings belong to, leaving a real gap.
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?
There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for schema 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?
The description never states an action verb or that it returns settings; 'Its address...' is a fragment with an unclear referent. A reader can infer it describes app settings fields, partly aided by the name/title, but the purpose is not explicit and is not differentiated from update_app_settings.
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 indication of when to use this instead of update_app_settings or list_applications, and no prerequisites or context about which app's settings are read. 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.