lookup_appSearch installed apps by name or package to get ranked matches with scores, helping agents identify the correct app before launching it on a device.
Search installed apps by name or package; returns ranked candidates with scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| device | No | ||
| app_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers only that results are ranked with scores. It does not state read-only nature, permission requirements, whether an empty result is an error, or any rate/behavioral constraints. Ranking/scores is a genuine addition but far short of what an unannotated tool needs.
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?
One compact sentence with the search target front-loaded and the return behavior appended. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too sparse for a four-parameter tool rather than elegantly brief.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with zero annotation coverage and four entirely undocumented parameters, the description omits the parameter disambiguation an agent needs to call this correctly, leaving it materially incomplete.
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 0% for four parameters (limit, query, device, app_name). The description's 'by name or package' loosely gestures at query/app_name but never clarifies the difference between those two overlapping inputs, what device scopes, or what limit controls. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb (search) plus resource (installed apps) and scope (by name or package), and discloses the return shape (ranked candidates with scores). It implies a distinction from list_apps through 'search' and 'ranked candidates', but never names that sibling or any other, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_apps (enumerate everything) or launch_app/start_app (act on a chosen app). The reader must infer from 'search' that this is the fuzzy-name resolution step before launching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.