Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Appo MCP

Appo MCP

Official
by appolabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

check_permissions

Detect permission handling issues in code for push, camera, or location features and receive actionable suggestions for a proper permission flow.

Instructions

Analyze permission handling patterns in code for a specific SDK feature. Returns analysis with suggestions for proper permission flow.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>",
      "feature": "<feature>"
    },
    "name": "check_permissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesCode to analyze for permission handling
featureYesFeature requiring permission (push, camera, or location)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns analysis with suggestions but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, modifies anything, or requires authentication. Behavioral traits beyond the basic return are missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the main purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every part is relevant and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description competently explains the tool's function and return value. However, it could be slightly more detailed about the scope of analysis (e.g., only permission patterns, not general code issues).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes permission handling patterns in code for a specific SDK feature. The verb 'Analyze' and resource 'permission handling patterns' are specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'diagnose_issue', which may also analyze code.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools