Appo MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

diagnose_issue

Submit a symptom, feature, platform, or error message for an @appolabs/appo SDK integration problem and get a diagnosis with solutions and code fixes.

Instructions

Diagnose common @appolabs/appo SDK integration issues. Provides diagnosis with solutions and code fixes.

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": {
      "symptom": "<symptom>"
    },
    "name": "diagnose_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`feature`	No	SDK feature related to the issue (if known)
`symptom`	Yes	Description of the issue or error
`platform`	No	Platform where issue occurs
`errorMessage`	No	Exact error message (if available)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jan 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose if the tool modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects. Merely states it provides diagnosis, which is vague.

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?

Two concise sentences, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with core purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Describes what the tool provides (diagnosis, solutions, code fixes) but lacks details on output format. Given no output schema, more context on return structure would be helpful.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so description need not add more. The description does not repeat or enhance parameter info beyond schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states it diagnoses Appo SDK integration issues and provides solutions/code fixes. Distinguishes from siblings like check_permissions and generate_component.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context is implied, no when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.

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