YC GraphQL MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

yc_verify_application_update

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies an application by reading it and comparing exact expected field values, reporting current matches and mismatches without writing or replaying mutations.

Instructions

Read an application and compare exact expected text answers. Reports current matches and mismatches without writing or replaying a mutation. A match does not establish which operation caused it.

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": {
      "appUuid": "<appUuid>",
      "expected": "<expected>"
    },
    "name": "yc_verify_application_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`appUuid`	Yes
`expected`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No
`untrustedContent`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: matching is on exact text, no mutation is written or replayed, and a match does not prove which operation caused it — an honest and useful limitation. It stops short of spelling out comparison rules such as case or whitespace sensitivity.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the side-effect guarantee and the causation caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the two-parameter surface is small. The description covers purpose, safety and the key semantic caveat, leaving only minor gaps such as comparison strictness and behavior when a requested field is absent or the UUID is invalid.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load, and it only partially does: 'application' maps to appUuid and 'expected text answers' hints that expected is a set of field/value text comparisons. It says nothing about the 1–30 entry limit, the field-name format constraint, or that value may be null.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read an application and compare exact expected text answers') and states the output shape ('Reports current matches and mismatches'). It implicitly separates itself from the prepare/commit mutation siblings by saying it works 'without writing or replaying a mutation', though it does not name an alternative outright.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The verification use case is implied by 'compare exact expected text answers' and the no-side-effects clause, so an agent can infer when to reach for it over a mutation. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement and no exclusion pointing to yc_get_application for a plain read or yc_query for broader inspection.

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