Check an app's publication status and receive a clear required action when rejected, without exposing raw reviewer text.
Returns the Appo publication status and the curated required action for a rejected app. Never exposes raw reviewer text. Non-destructive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Non-destructive' and adds a meaningful privacy boundary with 'Never exposes raw reviewer text'. It does not cover auth/error behavior, but is sufficient for a simple read-only tool.
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 description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and packs in safety and privacy constraints without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (publication status and curated action) and key behaviors (non-destructive, no raw reviewer text). It could add a bit more on expected output shape, but overall it is complete enough for this simple tool.
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 100%: the only parameter, app_id, is already documented in the schema as 'The app ID'. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource as 'Appo publication status and the curated required action for a rejected app'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like publish_app or get_build_status by focusing on rejected apps and the curated action.
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?
Usage context is implied: the tool is for rejected apps needing status/action. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_fix_recipe or get_app_overview, nor does it mention any exclusions beyond not exposing reviewer text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.