argo_app_detailRetrieve detailed status and resource health for a single ArgoCD application by name.
Get detailed status for a single ArgoCD application including resource health.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Application name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| retained | No | ||
| revision | Yes | ||
| resources | Yes | ||
| conditions | Yes | ||
| syncStatus | Yes | ||
| healthStatus | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, so the description's burden is low. It adds the useful note that health information is included in the response, but says nothing about error behavior for missing apps or the richness of the status payload.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. No padding, though it could have used its brevity budget to add one routing hint instead.
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 no explanation, and the single required parameter is fully documented. The definition is nearly complete for a simple one-param read tool; only sibling differentiation is absent.
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 coverage is 100% with a single 'name' parameter already described as 'Application name'. The description adds no naming conventions, namespace/context qualifiers, or format hints beyond the schema baseline.
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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed status for a single ArgoCD application') plus the scope of content ('including resource health'). This distinguishes it from the list-oriented sibling argo_apps, though the overlap with argo_app_health_summary is not addressed.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'for a single application' suggests it is the per-app detail fetch. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to argo_apps / argo_app_health_summary / argo_app_diff is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.