Check an app's current status—running, stopped, or deploying—and retrieve its public endpoints. Use it to health-check an app or find its URLs.
Check the current status of an app — whether it is running, stopped, or deploying, plus its public endpoints. Use this to health-check an app or discover its URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | The numeric ID of the app |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the safety burden. The wording 'Check the current status' clearly indicates an observation/read operation rather than a state change, and it discloses the kind of information returned. It does not detail error behavior or authentication, but those are less critical for this simple read 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?
Two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the usage guidance appended. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy or filler.
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 one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the result content and use cases. Minor omissions such as exact response shape or error conditions do not undermine the agent's ability to select and invoke the 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?
The only parameter, appId, is already fully documented in the schema as 'The numeric ID of the app.' The description only refers generically to 'an app' and adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 read verb ('Check the current status') and resource ('an app'), and enumerates the returned content: 'whether it is running, stopped, or deploying, plus its public endpoints.' This clearly differentiates it from mutation, log, and metric sibling tools.
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?
Explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this to health-check an app or discover its URLs.' It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the intended context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.