Retrieve the app relationship for a specific App Encryption Declaration ID to identify the associated app. Deprecated endpoint.
[DEPRECATED] GET /v1/appEncryptionDeclarations/{id}/relationships/app (GET /v1/appEncryptionDeclarations/{id}/relationships/app)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses deprecation status, which is valuable, but says nothing about read-only semantics, authentication requirements, or what the relationship payload contains.
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 deprecation warning is correctly front-loaded, but the path is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, which is pure redundancy. The text is short yet a meaningful portion of it earns nothing.
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?
For a read-relationship endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least explain what 'relationship' returns versus the _related sibling. It leaves the agent to guess the payload and has no replacement guidance for a deprecated 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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'id'. The description adds no syntax or format nuance beyond that, matching the baseline for a fully covered schema.
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 is essentially the HTTP path restated (twice) plus a deprecation tag. It never says in plain language that it returns the app resource linked to an app encryption declaration, so the agent must infer purpose from URL structure alone.
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?
The [DEPRECATED] marker is the only usage signal and it is useful, but there is no statement of when this should be preferred over the sibling app_encryption_declarations_app_get_to_one_related, nor why the relationship variant exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.