get_app_feedbackRetrieve the latest 20 comments and received Dorm counts for your app to identify positive aspects and improvement requests, helping you plan the next update.
내 앱에 달린 최근 댓글 20개와 받은 도름 수를 가져온다. 어떤 점이 좋았는지, 어떤 개선 요청이 있는지 파악해 다음 업데이트에 반영할 때 쓴다. app_id 는 list_my_apps 로 확인한 UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | 앱 UUID (list_my_apps 결과의 id) |
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 burden. It discloses that this is a read-style operation returning 20 recent comments plus a count, but it does not describe ordering, error behavior, permissions, or response structure. Adequate but minimal.
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?
Front-loaded with the core result in the first sentence, followed by purpose and parameter source in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: what will be returned, why to use it, and where to get app_id. The exact return layout is unspecified, but the high-level contents are sufficient for invocation.
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 schema already documents app_id as a UUID from list_my_apps, and the description largely repeats that. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the 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?
States a specific verb and resource: it fetches the latest 20 comments and received help count for the app. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_my_apps and post_app_update.
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?
Gives clear context for when to use it: to understand user sentiment and improvement requests for the next update. It also tells the agent that app_id comes from list_my_apps, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.