cloud_app_getInspect a deployed app by ID to retrieve its status, URL, deployment times, and host details, with optional sandbox mode.
App từ git đã live: app host đầu tiên ~2–3 phút, deploy sau đó 10–20 giây. / Git apps are live. Đọc status, URL, lần deploy và app host. / Inspect app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | ||
| sandbox | No | Thử 0đ, không tạo hạ tầng thật / Sandbox, no charge |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld. The description adds the specific fields returned (status, URL, deploy times, app host) and deployment latency expectations, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not cover auth or error behavior, but annotations lower the bar.
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?
Very short, but the bilingual slash-separated fragments and leading deployment-timing sentence make it poorly front-loaded; the core 'Inspect app' purpose appears last. It could be tighter and more direct.
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 simple read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what will be returned (status, URL, deploy times, app host). It omits sandbox parameter effects and error handling, but those are minor given the tool's low complexity.
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 50%, with only the optional sandbox parameter described. The description says nothing about app_id or sandbox semantics, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter. app_id is obvious from the name, but the description adds no meaningful parameter detail.
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 'Inspect app' and lists what it reads: status, URL, deploy times, app host. It is a specific verb+resource, though it does not differentiate from siblings like cloud_app_list or cloud_app_logs.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. The deployment timing note ('first app host ~2-3 min, subsequent deploy 10-20s') is contextual but does not tell an agent when to choose this tool over cloud_app_list, cloud_app_logs, or cloud_app_deploy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.